Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered;

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Bill, Read the third time, and passed.

Fraserburgh Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill,

Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Return ordered "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1919 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners: the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Com-
missioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Pre-ambles of which were reported to have been not proved:

And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1919 have been dealt with."—[Mr. Munro.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH PRISONERS (NEGOTIATIONS FOR RELEASE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has been made with the negotiations for the exchange of British prisoners of war in Soviet Russia; by what means and through what channels are the negotiations being conducted; and have any steps been taken to invite the good offices of the Royal Roumanian Government or of the Esthonian Government, both of which are or have been in touch with Moscow?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Negotiations for the release of British prisoners in Russia are still in progress. These negotiations are conducted by means of wireless telegrams with the Russian Bolshevik Government.
The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware that the Esthonian Government either are or have been in close communication with the Russian Soviet Government.
As regards any negotiations between the Roumanian Government and the Russian Soviet Government, I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned to the hon. and gallant Member on the 28th ultimo.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Foreign Office received any information as to a semi-official mission going to Russia, and, if so, will it, in the interests of our men, be requested or invited to do all it can to expedite these negotiations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Any opportunity for hastening the release of our men will be taken.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we assume that no mission, either official or semi-official, has been undertaken to the Bolshevik Government during the last few weeks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the part of His Majesty's Government I think the hon. Member may assure himself of that.

KRONSTADT WATER WAY (MINES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether friendly and Allied nations have been warned of the areas off Kronstadt sown with British moored mines; whether a passage has been left for merchant ships proceeding to Petrograd for trading purposes; and, if so, whether this has been notified to merchants in neutral countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Allied and neutral countries have been informed that, owing to the risk of mines, passages to Petrograd should not be undertaken. As the forte on the shores of the Gulf of Petrograd are in the hands of the Bolsheviks, a passage through the Bolshevik minefields, which are known to exist in the Gulf of Petrograd, could only be swept at great risk to our mine-clearance vessels, the crows of which are not signed on for service under gun-fire. A channel cannot be declared to be free of mines unless and until the fact has been proved by sweeping, and consequently, the last part of the question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the defeat of Mannerheim by Stahlberg for the Presidency of Finland is held in that country to be a rebuff to His Majesty's Government and their expeditions against Petrograd; whether British credits to Finland have been cancelled on account of Mannerheim's defeat; and, in view of Mannerheim's record, will he make a statement on this subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the second
part of the question, His Majesty's Government have not been contemplating, either before or after the defeat of General Mannerheim, the grant of a credit to the Government of Finland.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it permissible to use a question for the purpose of making an innuendo against a foreign statesman like Mannerheim, whose reputation stands so-high in his own country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is a procedure very strongly to be deprecated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Against whom is the insinuation made? Is it against Mannerheim, the well-known butcher of the Reds in Finland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That only aggravates the offence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There was no-offence.

Sir J. D. REES: 62.
asked whether it is proposed to raise a loan for Finland in the British market?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Permission has been given to the Government of Finland to raise a loan in this country on. condition that the proceeds are devoted to the purchase of goods in the United Kingdom. I have no official information what progress has been made with the negotiations.

Sir J. D. REES: Will that provision be strictly enforced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the condition attaching to the raising of the loan.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will similar opportunity be given to the Governments of Esthonia, Lithuania, and Lativia?

Mr. CAIRNS: Will there be a guarantee that any goods going to that country are not required by the home consumer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In so far as it may be necessary to protect our own resources against depletion that must be done by restrictions of general application imposed by the Board of Trade. It would be wholly insufficient merely to attach conditions to a particular loan.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the abolition of the restrictions on capital issues now being considered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have been considering that question, but are not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject. I doubt very much whether the time has come for their complete abolition.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (LICENCE FEES).

Colonel YATE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps it is proposed to take to place commercial travellers of foreign nations entering the United Kingdom on the same footing as regards the payment of licences, taxes, and fees as British commercial travellers are placed on entering foreign countries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): No proposals of the kind have been under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. STEWART: Will the Government consider whether it is not possible to apply the same law as the French of strict reciprocity in this matter, charging foreign commercial travellers the same as our travellers are charged in foreign countries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That probably cannot be done under existing treaties, but I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM (TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM).

Colonel GRETTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the commercial economic arrangements in respect of British exports to Belgium and Belgian exports to the United Kingdom?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: (Department of Oversea Trade) As the answer is a lengthy one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

All goods maybe freely exported from this country to Belgium with the exception of those appearing in Sections A and B of the List of Export Prohibited Goods; issued by the Export Licence Department of the Board of Trade. Goods included in Section A are prohibited to all destinations unless a licence is previously obtained; goods in Section B are prohibited to all
destinations other than ports and destinations in British Possessions and Protectorates. Goods have been exported from this country to Belgium during the past seven months to the following values:

£


January
…
…
312,244


February
…
…
833,561


March
…
…
2,807,000


April
…
…
4,378,000


May
…
…
5,500,000


June
…
…
4,822,000


July
…
…
5,637,281

In December last, the British Treasury opened a temporary credit for the Government of Belgium to facilitate the task of that Government and of its nationals in placing orders for the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom required for the restoration of Belgium pending the receipt of compensation from the Enemy Powers. This credit was placed to a special account at the Bank of England against the discount at 5 per cent. from time to time of Belgian Government three months' Treasury Bills, up to an aggregate face value of £9,000,000 sterling in the first instance, such bills to be renewable until the receipt of compensation from the Enemy Powers. Sanctions have been granted for purchases against this credit to the extent of £4,500,000. As the result of a recent visit to this country by Monsieur Jaspar, the Belgian Minister des Affaires Economiques, the Treasury are considering the extension of the benefits of the credit in aid of private enterprises in Belgium. It is understood that India and certain of the Dominions are about to open credits in aid of Belgian reconstruction.

A special section of the Department of Oversea Trade has been in existence for some time for the purpose of dealing with Belgian trade and reconstruction. This section acts on behalf of the British Government, inter alia, for the administration of the above-named credit, and for facilitating commercial enterprise between the two countries. In April last, the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel was appointed His Majesty's Special Commissioner in Belgium to give better effect to the efforts of this country undertake non behalf of the reconstruction of Belgium. As a result of Mr. Samuel's labours, the commercial relations between the two countries have been placed on a thoroughly satisfactory basis, and various misunderstandings, which appeared to have arisen, have now been cleared up, and there is every reason
to suppose that this country will be enabled to take a prominent part in helping towards the restoration of Belgian industries.

As regards imports from Belgium, sympathetic treatment is being given in view of the circumstances of that country. A system of rationing of Belgian imports has been instituted which gives favourable terms, Mae year 1913 being taken as the basis from which calculations are made. The following figures will indicate the position with regard to the resumption of exports from Belgium to this country:



£


January
…
…
…
25,824


February
…
…
…
81,895


March
…
…
…
87,470


April
…
…
…
84,800


May
…
…
…
98,213


June
…
…
…
153,150


the total for the six months being £531,352.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH VISITORS TO OCCUPIED AREA).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why only about 500 permits to enter the British-occupied areas in Ger many were issued to British subjects for business reasons during April, May, and June last, while nearly 5,000 permits to enter the same areas were, during the same period, issued to foreign subjects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The explanation is that very few more than 500 British subjects applied for permits. As a matter of fact not more than 2 per cent. of the applications to enter British-occupied areas in Germany for business purposes have been refused.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the British subjects who were permitted to enter the British occupied areas in Germany between 31st March and 30th June last were officials and how many were permitted to enter for business purposes; how many applications were made by British subjects to enter these British-occupied areas for business purposes; and how many were granted and how many refused?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The number of British subjects permitted to enter British-occupied areas in Germany between 31st
March and 30th June was 667. Of these permits to 448 were granted in London, the remainder having been granted by Consuls abroad. Between 31st March and 30th June 112 applications were made by British subjects to enter British occupied areas for business purposes; 102 permits were granted and 10 were refused; 336 permits were granted during that period to officials.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE (FEES).

Colonel YATE: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department what arrangements have now been made regarding the levy of Consular fees on invoice certificates, certificates of origin, legalisation of bills of lading, and such like documents by British Consuls abroad as are levied by foreign Consuls in Great Britain, with a view to the provision of funds towards the improvement of the British Consular service as well as to put British merchants in this country on an equal footing with foreign merchants abroad?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: The revision of the Consular fee table is under consideration, and complete proposals with a view to a largely increased yield have been formulated. These proposals include all the services referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

EX-STOKER ROBINSON'S GRATUITY.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 19.
asked the Pensions Minister whether payment can now be made to Mrs. James Robinson, 48, Arthur Street, Middlesbrough, the wife of ex-Stoker James Robinson, first class, No. K24942, Royal Navy, of the gratuity of 15 awarded April, 1918, but withheld on account of any claim the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians might make for the mental treatment of her husband; is he aware that the clerk to the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians officially states that his board has made no claim for this gratuity; and. as this woman is in necessitous circumstances and the gratuity is sixteen months overdue, can he see his way to expedite this payment being made?

The MINISTER for PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The board of guardians have so far made no claim to the gratuity, but they have not yet informed the Ministry of Pensions that they do not intend to do so. They have been asked to expedite their reply, and if it is favourable the gratuity will at once be paid.

OFFICERS' WIDOWS' ALTERNATIVE PENSION.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 20.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, seeing that widows of officers who were killed in the War and who applied for an alternative pension a few days after the 12th February, 1919, have not been allowed to have their alternative pension antedated to the date from the date upon which it became due, i.e., the date of their husbands' death, and that considerable hardship has been experienced by some of these widows, who are deprived of the money due to them solely by a Departmental rule of the Ministry of Pensions, he will have inquiry made into this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Delay in claiming an alternative pension greatly increases the difficulties involved in ascertaining pre-war earnings, and therefore Borne limit must be fixed for the period during which arrears may be granted. Ordinarily, the limit is three months from the award of the flat-rate pension. In November of last year the basis of the alternative pension of officers' widows was extended, and as a result a large number of widows became eligible in respect of officers who had died some time previously. A period of three months was allowed to enable these widows to acquaint themselves with the new provision, which was announced in Parliament and in the Press, and at the close of that period those who had not applied were treated in the same manner as widows who do not apply within three months of the award of flat-rate pension—that is, they are awarded alternative pension only from the date of application.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the exceptional cases of officers' widows in the Indian Army, who are suffering great hardship because they had not the same opportunities of applying for the alternative pension? Is he also aware that there are many widows living in England who were not aware that the pension could be ob-
tained; and can he see his way to extending the time, so that widows who are entitled shall get the alternative pension whether they applied in proper time or not?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot make any general extension. I cannot believe that widows in England were not fully cognisant of their rights. They were advertised on the food cards, which they must have had, in the Press, and in Parliament. If there are exceptional cases arising from absence from this country, I am prepared to look into them, but I cannot alter the general rule.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I lay some cases before the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Cases where there is a possibility they could not have had the knowledge, yes; but not cases which would involve breaking the general rule.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL HOLIDAYS (IRELAND).

Mr. T. W. BROWN: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether His Majesty had, through the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, requested that the holidays for school children in Ireland should be extended this year for one week; whether such request has been refused; and, as there has been no meeting of the Commissioners of National Education in the meantime, can he say on whose authority this request was refused?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRE-LAND (Mr. Denis Henry): It has been decided, in deference to the views of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, to grant the request for an extra week's holiday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA.

FLAX PRODUCTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anything has yet been done in connection with the recommendations of the Empire Flax Growing Committee as to sending out to British East Africa of a flax expert, and also as to the scheme for the extension of flax production by settlements in that country of slightly disabled soldiers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. Colonel Amery): No actual steps have yet been taken on the recommendations of the Empire Flax Growing Committee, pending communication with the Governor, but my hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that these recommendations will not be ignored. As to the second part of the question, an area suitable for flax growing has been set aside by the Governor for settlement by slightly disabled soldiers, subject to approval by the Colonial Office of the nature and terms of the scheme proposed. A particular scheme has recently been under consideration, and a final decision upon it is awaiting the result of correspondence with the other Departments interested in the disposal of the semi-disabled officers for whose benefit the scheme is intended.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Shall I be permitted to see the scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, when it is settled.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that this scheme has been under consideration now for about five months, and that there has been a great deal of delay in getting a decision on this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: In the first instance the scheme under consideration was on an entirely different, basis. In its present form it has not been under consideration for very long.

RUPEE CURRENCY.

Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the rise in value of the rupee from Is. 4d. to 1s. 10d. has so increased the cost of production of sisal fibre and other exportable products in British East Africa that most of the plantations will now produce at a loss, he will state whether gold is a legal tender in British East Africa; and, if so, will he recommend the Government to release gold or to legalise Treasury notes in order to remedy the position?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The whole question of exchange between British East Africa and this country is receiving careful consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the depreciation of the rupee
is a serious matter to men who are going out to East Africa; and why should East Africa, of all the Colonies in Africa, be subject to this rupee currency?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am very much aware of the seriousness of the situation. It so happens that East Africa has a rupee currency, and it is not altogether easy to change such a thing at a moment's notice.

COTTON.

Sir O. THOMAS: 30.
asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies why £6,000,000 can be found for the development of cotton in the Soudan, where there is a relatively small population and no European settlement, while the £3,000,000 already voted for the development of communications in British East Africa, where there is a large native population and many European settlers, and where cotton can be grown without irrigation, are still withheld?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The whole question of loan requirements and expenditure is under the consideration of the Secretary of State, who is quite alive both to the urgent needs and to the great possibilities of our territories in Eastern Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that there is no question of withholding the money required for the development of communications in East Africa, but only of settling the purposes which, in the present circumstances, are most urgent, and the methods by which the necessary capital expenditure can best be provided.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the land on which this money—about £6,000,000—is going to be spent in erecting dams in the Soudan, for the purpose of growing cotton, the property of the Government, or of public companies, or of private individuals?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to address any question with regard to the Soudan, which. is under the Foreign Office, to the representative of the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERPENTINE (BATHING REGULATIONS).

Mr. GILBERT: 31.
asked the first Commissioner of Works what are the Regulations and hours for bathing in the Serpentine water in Hyde Park; and whether,
during the continuance of the present hot weather and the duration of the London school holidays, he will extend the hours for children bathing in this park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The hours for bathing in the Serpentine at the present time are as follow:

Morning.

5 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. Males only.

Afternoon.

1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Girls, in the special enclosure.
1 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Boys.
6 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Adult males.

These hours were fixed after very careful consideration, and I do not think that any extension is necessary.

Sir J. D. REES: Why should not children bathe in the Serpentine whenever they like?

Sir A. MOND: Children can bathe there from 1.30 to 8.30, which is quite a long time.

Sir J. D. REES: Why are regulations necessary?

Sir A. MOND: We must have regulated hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF THE BLIND (STREET COLLECTION).

Mr. T. WILSON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state if the Advisory Committee have considered the question of granting a permit to take up a street collection en route in connection with a demonstration to be organised by the League of the Blind in Hyde Park on 17th August?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The matter has been further considered by the Advisory Committee with the result that a permit has now been granted subject to compliance with the Regulations, which require, inter alia, that all collectors should occupy stationary positions on the footway.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.

Lieut.-Colonel W. THORNE: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether, a few days ago, there arrived in England from
Norway a man named Zachariassen, who handed to a woman a sealed package; whether he was shortly afterwards arrested and, after a night's detention, made a confession implicating certain people in this country; if he had previously stated in England that he had brought a sum of £6,000 for the woman; and if he will give the House full information about the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: Axel Zachariassen landed in this country on 30th June, and was detained by the police as stated in the question. In a written statement he said that he had been asked to convey from Stockholm a locked box, of which he had the key, containing notes, and to hand it to a lady in this country. In this statement he said that he did not know the amount of the notes, but he appears previously to have said that the sum brought by him was £6,000 The lady in question has admitted having received £280 through Zachariassen for the support of a journal of extreme views and small circulation of which she is the editor.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the lady in question Miss Sylvia Pankhurst?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that is the lady's name.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANS (ADMISSION RESTRICTIONS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 25.
asked the Home Secretary on what terms and conditions-Germans are now being admitted into this country and what restrictions are imposed on them as to the place and duration of their residence here; and whether the Germans whose businesses were wound up-under the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, are permitted to return to this country and restart their businesses?

Mr. SHORTT: Two categories of German subjects are at present being admitted to the United Kingdom: (1) British born wives who have urgent reasons for coming here, such as the serious illness of a parent; no conditions are imposed on their landing; (2) German business men who can prove that their visit to this country will be for the benefit of British trade. Such men are admitted subject to appropriate conditions as to the duration of their stay and the places that they visit, and they are required to register forthwith with the police and report to them all
temporary changes of residence. Germans who have been repatriated are not being permitted to return to restart their businesses.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what are these conditions of residence under which Germans are admitted here?

Mr. SHORTT: The conditions are that they report their residence and report any change of residence.

Captain W. BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly say is this country at peace with Germany?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he gives permits to Germans, bear in mind the pledges given at the General Election by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and the present Lord Chancellor?

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the visits of German business men to this country will be for the benefit of the trade of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — SYNDICALIST LEADERS.

Mr. ROSE: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any other Syndicalist leaders employed by the police authorities on the terms admitted by him to have governed the employment of the convict F. W. Watson; and, if so, will he publish the names of such persons?

Mr. SHORTT: I must decline to answer this question, not because it presents any difficulties in itself, but because I must maintain the general principle of not giving any replies, positive or negative, with regard to police informants.

Mr. ROSE: Why was that pious ordinance broken in the case of Watson; and why could the right hon. Gentleman make disclosures in his case and cannot make them in any other cases, provided that such other effenders exist, as they undoubtedly do?

Mr. SHORTT: The case of Watson apparently was known.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. gentleman say what sum of money is being expended annually by the Home Office on secret service?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN HOSPITAL, WINCHMORE HILL.

Mr. DOYLE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if at the Northern Hospital, Winchmore Hill, London, certain wards are used for consumptive patients in all stages of the disease, the patients including men, women, and children, while other wards are being used for children convalescent from scarlet fever and diphtheria removed from other infectious hospitals ; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the whole of the wards referred to are enclosed in one building, that the nursing staff is presided over by one matron, and that the nurses are employed indiscriminately in either infectious or tuberculosis wards; whether, if he decides that the hospital should still house both classes of patients, steps will be taken to appoint a recognised expert to take responsible charge of the tuberculosis wards; and if he will ascertain if there is sufficient and suitable space for recreation for sanatorium patients?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor): Some blocks at the Metropolitan Asylums Board Hospital, Winchmore Hill, are used for the treatment of tuberculous patients and other blocks for convalescent cases of acute infectious disease but no ward and no block is used for more than, one disease. The tuberculous patients are classified in their respective wards according to the stages of the disease. A nurse engaged in nursing tuberculosis is not allowed to come into contact with cases of acute infectious disease. An entirely separate medical staff, with special experience in tuberculosis, under the general supervision of the medical superintendent of the hosptal, is in charge of the blocks for the treatment of tuberculosis. Having regard to the class of case admitted to these blocks, the space available for recreation is sufficient and suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLY, RECURDEAN HILL, GLOUCESTER.

Mr. WIGNALL: 35.
asked the Minister of Health if inconvenience and danger to the health of the people have been caused by the holding up of the water scheme to supply the inhabitants of Recurdean Hill, Gloucestershire, with a supply of water; if for six months a dispute has
existed between his Department and the local council whether cast-iron or galvanised iron pipes should be used; and if he will take steps to get the matter settled at once, so that the scheme can be proceeded with?

Major ASTOR: The Ministry are in communication with the council, from whom they received on the 22nd of July a revised estimate on which a loan could be sanctioned. The question of the use of galvanised iron pipes is to be considered at an early conference with the council.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the real danger to health through contaminated water which children will get to in this hot weather; as there is a water supply within forty yards of the neighbourhood not injured in any way by the soil, has he any objection to the laying of this pipe; and will he expedite matters, so that this evil may be removed?

Major ASTOR: I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be lost. I sent word this morning to get the matter settled as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

TRAFFIC FROM NOTTINGHAM TO DUNDEE

Mr. ATKEY: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 16th July Sturmey-Archer Gears, Limited, Nottingham, handed to the Great Northern Railway Company a case of goods for Dundee; that this case was returned a few days later, as they were unable to take the traffic; that after repeated communications they were prevailed upon to accept the same again on the 25th July, and since then it has again been returned to the senders, the company stating that they could not forward traffic to Dundee; whether the traffic from Nottingham to Dundee has been allocated to the Great Northern Railway Company; and, if so, in view of their inability to handle the traffic, will he cause another railway company to be selected who can deliver the goods?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of the circumstances referred to, but am making inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

CHEMICALS.

Mr. RAFFAN: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Licensing Sub-committee (Dyes Department) of the Import Restrictions Department has the power, before granting permission for the importation of medicinal chemicals said to come within their province, to demand the name of the actual manufacturers as well as that of the consignors and to demand the original invoice and to levy a charge of 1 per cent, on the said invoice, estimated at the rate of exchange at the time of granting permission to import?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Chemicals of kinds which are intermediate materials for the manufacture of dyestuffs can be imported only under licence and must be consigned, to the Central Importing Agency, which is entitled to levy a charge of 1 per cent. to meet expenses incurred. This arrangement has been made by the Licensing Subcommittee of the Trade and Licensing. Committee equally representative of dye-makers and dye-users established under the Government scheme for the encouragement of the, dye-making industry, and has met with the general approval of all the interests concerned. The name of the actual manufacturer is necessary in order to prevent the indirect importation of German dyes and materials, and the invoice value for the purpose of calculating the agency fee. Chemicals suitable only for medicinal purposes are not included within the scope of the arrangement. The Licensing Sub-committee of the Dyes Department is distinct from the Import Restrictions Department. No fees are charged by the latter.

Mr. RAFFAN: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Department of Import Restrictions is asking why the requirements of chemical firms for such chemicals as diethyl barbituric acid, methyl sulphonal, and santoine cannot be satisfied in this country, notwithstanding the fact that these chemicals are not manufactured in Great Britain to any appreciable extent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No inquiry as to the chemicals named can at present be traced, but it is a usual matter of routine to inquire of applicants for licences whether their wants cannot be satisfied from home sources. When it is agreed that chemicals
which are needed are not manufactured in this country to any appreciable extent licences to import them are freely issued.

Mr. RAFFAN: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Licensing Sub-committee (Dyes Department) of the Import Restrictions Department has the power, under Proclamation No. 29, to prohibit the importation of such chemicals as antipyrin, amidopyrin, and phenacetin, notwithstanding the fact that these chemicals are used entirely for medicinal purposes, and arc not in any sense intermediary dye products?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The three products named are undoubtedly intermediate coal-tar products, but for the reason stated in the question the duty of issuing licences for them has, by interdepartmental arrangement, been transferred from the Licensing Sub-committee of the Dyes Department to the Department of Import Restrictions.

VANILLAN.

Mr. RAFFAN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of vanillan into this country has been entirely prohibited in spite of the fact that the entire output of British manufacturers has been sold up to the end of September; and whether the effect of this prohibition has been to increase the market price of vanillan from 45s. to 80s. per pound?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The importation of vanillan is not prohibited entirely; it is restricted to 50 per cent. of 1915 imports. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion in the latter part of the question.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say that the price has not increased from 45s. to 80s. per pound as the result of this restriction, and is he able to say whether it is not true that home manufacturers say they can fulfil no orders till the end of September?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say what the hon. Member attributes to me. I did.not admit that the whole increase is due to the import restrictions.

Mr. RAFFAN: I did not desire to suggest that the hon. Gentleman answered the question that way. I desired to ask whether he is not able to say what the increase has been and if it is inaccurate to say the price has been increased from 45s. to 80s. per ton?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot be quite certain, but I will make further inquiry if the hon. Member wishes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of selling these licences so as to bring in some revenue?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

Captain W. BENN: Has anyone ever been prosecuted for ignoring the restrictions imposed by the Board of Trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question too.

Mr. RAFFAN: Do the home manufacturers say they can fulfil no orders till the end of September, and if that is true why should these restrictions be imposed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know. I cannot answer that.

Mr. RAFFAN: If I put a question down again in the early part of the week, will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure an answer?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question is whether tile importation of vanillan into this country has been entirely prohibited in spite of the fact, and so on The question is not whether it is a fact.

PLOUGHS.

Colonel MILDMAY: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. E. Glanville, of Lustleigh, Devon, wholesale agent for agricultural implements, who was permitted by licence from the Board of Trade to import ploughs during the War but has now been suddenly prohibited from importing such ploughs, though he had ordered many of them; and, in view of the urgent need for them in agricultural districts, whether this prohibition is in accordance with the general policy of the Board?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By a decision of the Imports Consultative Council, published on 8th May, agricultural machinery was not to be licensed beyond the quantity covered by the rations existing at the time, and Mr. Glanville's attention was drawn to this ruling. It now appears,
however, that there still remains a small balance of his ration, and he will be allowed to import the amount represented by that balance. The question of further import after 1st September is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT OF HULL (TIMBER CONGESTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the congestion of timber at the port of Hull owing to sufficient railway wagons not being available to transport it; whether he is aware that this is causing delays in shipping and also shortage of timber and high prices in the country; and whether, in case it is impossible to detail more wagons for this work, steps can be taken to use road, coastal, and canal traffic to relieve this congestion and distribute the timber?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention was recently called to this matter, and I understand that, as far as the congestion of timber traffic at Hull is due to an insufficient supply of railway wagons, such steps as are possible are being taken by the railway companies to meet the requirements of the trade, due regard being paid to the present heavy demands for wagons at Hull for foodstuffs and perishables and other urgent traffic. Arrangements are also being made for the increased use of water transport in cases such as that referred to.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the use of motor transport be possible? Has it been considered by the Department?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes; it has been considered.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same difficulty is to be found in all the ports throughout the Kingdom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The matter is receiving the most careful consideration of my right hon. Friend. Cases do, of course, occur all over the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKING MEN'S CLUBS (LIQUOR RESTRICTIONS).

Captain BOWYER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the effect of the liquor restrictions at present en forced in working men's clubs; whether he is aware that these restrictions were war time measures; whether, now that the Peace Treaty has been signed, he will state what are the reasons for the continuation of these restrictions; and whether, in view of the importance of removing any source of irritation, he will consider the advisability of removing these restrictions at the earliest possible date?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.

Captain BOWYER: Can the right lion. Gentleman give any information before the end of the Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, not more information than I have given, which is that the Government are going to introduce a Bill on the subject, but cannot do it until after the Recess, and in the meantime the position remains as before.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these workmen's clubs, acting on the advice of myself and other eminent lawyers, are ignoring these restrictions, on the ground that they no longer retain any force in law?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the lion. Member prepared to take the position that if he and other eminent lawyers are wrong they will bear the penalty?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I do not mind being prosecuted a bit by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET RECONSTRUCTION.

Sir JAMES CORY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to reconstruct the Cabinet on a Peace basis; and, if so, when will this be accomplished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 16th of July to questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Members for East Leyton and Yeovil respectively.

Captain ORMSBY-GOR,E: Is not the best way to go to work to reduce expenditure to restore the old system of Cabinet Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend's views and mine differ on that subject. I believe it would not tend in the least to help in coordinating the work, which is the only way to keep down expenses

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF).

Mr. ROSE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a meeting of No. 3 Sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure was held on 17th July to consider the arrangements for staffing the Ministry of Supply; if he will state whether these prospective arrangements for a service for which Parliamentary authority has not yet been asked were within his cognisance; and will he now definitely state what are the intentions of the Government in reference to the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of the meeting referred to. As regards the rest of the question, I cannot add anything to what I said on Monday last in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western.

Mr. ROSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the meeting of the Sub-committee if I furnish him with a copy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, certainly.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest), in answer to me on Monday, said some 3,000 officials had been transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Supply, and how does he reconcile that statement with the answer he has given me?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It would have been more correct to say they were transferred to the Ministry of Munitions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (WAR BONUSES).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health what is the cost each year of the grants made and promise I to panel doctors and chemists in respect of war bonuses or allowances?

Major ASTOR: The answer is long, and I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

Major ASTOR: Giants by way of war bonuses or allowances, as distinct from the regular payments for remuneration for insurance practice, have been made to insurance practitioners, in respect of the year 1918, amounting to approximately £300,000. Approval has been given by the Treasury for the grant of a war bonus to insurance practitioners in respect of the year 1919 on a basis corresponding broadly to that laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Civil Servants. The cost of the grants for the year 1919 is estimated to be approximately £950,000. These figures are for Great Britain. As regards chemists, the increase of remuneration afforded them in respect of war conditions forms part of the general charge upon funds provided for defraying the cost of medical benefit and cannot be readily separated.

Mr. SITCH: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if 'he has yet given any consideration to the insufficiency, owing to declining money values, of the allowance of 3s. 5d. per member of approved societies for administrative purposes under the National Health Insurance Acts ; and, if not, can he see his way to do so and recommend Parliament to approve of an augmentation of the allowance in order to meet the increased expenditure of the societies under that head?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if some approved societies have been unable to grant an adequate war bonus to their staffs in consequence of the administration allowance, which was fixed by Regulation several years ago, being now found by them to be insufficient; and, if so, what action lie proposes to take?

Major ASTOR: It rests solely with the approved society to determine the salaries of its officials, and the Ministry has no knowledge of the extent to which war bonuses have been granted. The audited accounts indicate that the great majority of societies have still a surplus on their administration account, though the necessity for increasing the maximum sum available for purposes of administration is under consideration in connection with the question of the revision of the rates of contributions and benefits. Sick-
ness and unemployment benefits are, however, so closely associated that the question of the revision of the sickness benefit scale cannot be settled pending a decision in regard to the contemplated revision of unemployment benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN FRONTIER OPERATIONS (HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT).

Colonel YATE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what steps are to be taken to inquire into the alleged shortage of hospital equipment and supplies, the deficiency of water supplies, and the consequent, outbreak of cholera in the Khaibar during the late operations on the North-West Frontier of India?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I would refer the lion, and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to my lion, and gallant Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing. I hope to lay Papers tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY RAIDS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. H. GRITTEN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the great majority of those injured by the bombardment of the Hartle pools on 16th December, 1914, and by subsequent air raids, are poor people and have received either very inadequate compensation or none at all, and in a number of instances have actually become chargeable to the guardians, the Government will without further delay advance compensation, instead of keeping their cases waiting indefinitely to be settled by a Reparation Commission or other authority to be constituted under the terms of Peace?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me, on 14th March last, to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Putney Division, Wandsworth. The Government is unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

Mr. GRITTEN: In view of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK RACES.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether lie will give a day before the Recess to discuss the present position of the black races?

Mr. BONARLAW: I regret that it is not. possible to give special facilities for this discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Senate recently found time to discuss the Irish question, and does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be a graceful act to reciprocate by placing at the disposal of the United States the benefit of our experience in governing the negro races throughout the British Empire?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I now understand, I did not before, the meaning of this question. Perhaps the best way for the hon. Gentleman to express his views would be to put down a Resolution to that effect.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no similitude between the Irish race and the negro race?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I recognise that, except that they are both human.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to prevent any effort to sow dissension between this country and America even by means of what may be intended to be merely humour?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like to say, in so far as that question is concerned, that the Government recognises, and I think the House recognises, that largely the future of the world depends upon good relations between the United States and this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE (OFFICIAL HANDBOOKS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the volumes of historical, economic, and geographical information which were prepared for the use of the British delegates in Paris will be published; and whether the prices will be fixed at such reasonable amounts as will make them generally accessible?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Arrangements are being made by the Foreign Office for the publication of the Peace handbooks
prepared for the use of the British Delegation at the Peace Conference at Paris. Considerable editorial work is involved, and at the present moment it is impossible to say when the volumes will be ready for issue. Due economy will be exercised in respect of the remuneration of the editorial staff and in cutting down the cost of preparation and production. It is to be anticipated that the books can be issued at prices sufficiently low to render them generally accessible to the public.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will these handbooks be issued as a White Paper, or will Members have to buy them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think hon. Members will have to buy them. There are many volumes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Colonel GRETTON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if any economic or commercial understanding or treaty has been negotiated with the United States of America as the corollary of the Treaty of Peace; and if any arrangements have been agreed to or approaching agreement for the favourable admission of British exports into the United States of America?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAINING OF OFFICERS (UNIVERSITY COURSE).

Sir J. D. REES: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, notwithstanding the critical state of the country's finances, 4.000 officers are to be sent to the universities at the expense of the taxpayer?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Under the Government scheme for the assisted education of ex-Service officers and men, which was de-sided upon by the War Cabinet in December, 1918, and publicly announced in the same month, Grants are being made by the Board of Education for courses of higher education at universities, polytechnics, and other public educational institutions. I cannot say at present how many ex-officers and men will receive assistance under this scheme, but I am sure that the money will be well spent in the national interest.

Sir J. D.REES: Cannot as much be said for every one of the items of expenditure, and if no beginning is ever to be made in cutting down, when is a saving to-be effected?

Mr. FISHER: That is a matter of opinion. My hon. Friend is justified in-having one opinion; I have another opinion on this point. I think the money is very well spent. I may add that no-officer and no man under this scheme receives a Grant for higher education unless he can prove to the satisfaction of a competent committee, whose work comes under my review subsequently, (1) that he needs assistance, and (2) that he is capable of profiting by the course offered.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that by the action of the trade unions many of those who obtain such training in technical colleges are prevented from obtaining employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of that.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Minister of Labour answered that yesterday?

Mr. SPEAKER: If so, there is no reason. to ask it again.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (LADY SUPERINTENDENTS, ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent decision given in the Court of the King's Bench in the case of Curtis, surveyor of taxes, and Holds worth, when the appeal of the Crown against the finding of the General Commission for Income Tax at York, that acting-paymasters were in fact doing work of a military character, was dismissed, he will give the reasons for the refusal of the Special Commissioner of Income Tax at the War Office to assess the incomes of lady superintendents of the Army Pay Department at military rates, seeing that these ladies are doing the same work and carrying out the same duties as acting-paymasters or other officers of the Army Pay Department; and whether he will consider the advisability of reversing the decision of the Special Commissioner?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am inquiring into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in. a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMBROIDERY IMPORTS.

Mr. ATKEY: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the only means of dealing with the adverse exchange is by reducing imports of articles of luxury; if so, whether he is aware that the value of imported embroidery in 1916 was over £3,000,000 sterling, and that the Board of Trade have just increased the ration So as to permit importation of a like amount for the current year; and whether he is aware that this is not only causing unemployment in Nottingham but adversely affecting exchange?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN.: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Reduction of the import of luxuries is certainly one method but not the only one of dealing with adverse exchanges. Moreover a great quantity of this embroidery is made into apparel in this country and exported, thus affording a considerable amount of employment. Whilst the figure given as to the import of embroidery is roughly accurate, it is not correct to say that the ration has lately been increased so as to permit an equal amount to be imported now. On the contrary, as I pointed out to the hon. Member in a previous answer, having regard to the large rise in value, the quantity now permitted to be imported is rather less than half the quantity imported in 1916. I am not aware that this adjustment of the ration has caused unemployment.

Captain W. BENN: If the material is used for re-export why does the Board of Trade prevent its import?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is one of the larger questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

REVISION OF ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. BETTERTON: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of the saving which could be effected in expenditure by a revision of the establishment of the Ministry of Munitions, in view of the termination of the War?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As the reply is lengthy, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

The establishment of the Ministry of Munitions has been under constant revision since the date of the Armistice. The numbers and costs of the Headquarters Staff on 11th November, 1918, and on 31st July of this year are as follow:



Head quarters Staff.
Salaries and Wages per annum.


11th November, 1918
25,144
£4,778,817


31st July, 1919
13,884
3,150,000

These figures show that the number of staff has been reduced by 44.7. The reduction of the War Staffs of the Ministry is, however, greater than this figure indicates. Of the 13,884 persons employed on 31st July, 1,700 have been engaged since November last in connection with the disposal of surplus Government property—a new duty placed upon the Ministry since the date of the Armistice. In addition to this, the Ministry have, since the Armistice, taken over the staff engaged on supplies for the Army, which were previously administered by the War Office. The figure for July also includes 1,000 persons employed on a special investigation of the earlier accounts of the Ministry, in fulfilment of a pledge given in the House of Commons.

The Comptroller and Auditor-General attaches considerable importance to the completion of this work, and no reduction of this staff is immediately practicable. It will be seen that the cost of the staff does not show a decline corresponding to the reduction in numbers. Those demobilised have, for the greater part, been doing less responsible duties, remunerated on the lower scales of pay. The Conciliation and Arbitration Board have awarded advances in pay since November last to the staff whose services have been retained.

In considering the rate at which the staff of the Ministry has been reduced, it must be remembered that when hostilities ceased the Ministry had current over 34,000 contracts. These represented a Government liability of over £300,000,000. The liquidation of this large debt, with full regard to the interests of the taxpayer, necessarily require a large and expensive staff. Any attempt too rapidly to reduce the staff occupied on this work would result in the sacrifice of large sums of public money, and would inevitably lengthen the period of liquidation. No liquidation of this magnitude has ever previously had to be undertaken in this
country or, so far as I am aware, in any other. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his last Report, more than once directed attention to the necessity of securing sufficiently large and qualified staffs for the financial work of the Ministry. The realisation of the Surplus assets is also a business of unprecedented magnitude and complexity. Surplus stores and property to the value of £156,000,000 have already been sold either on trading account or as surplus proper.

Every possible step is being taken to reduce the staff of the Ministry to the lowest number consistent with the protection of the interests of the taxpayer, and I hope that I shall be able to announce a further substantial reduction at an early date; but in view of the facts which I have here set out, it would be obvious that until the liquidation work and the disposal of surplus Government property have been completed, the retention of a considerable staff will be necessary. On the 11th November, 1918, the number of motor cars at headquarters was sixty-three. This number has been reduced to six. The number of cars at provincial centres and factories was 291. This number has been reduced to eight. These reductions represent a total annual saving of £173,460. Since the Armistice the surrender of premises occupied by the Ministry has effected a total saving in annual rental of £110,900.

Major NALL: Can the hon. Gentleman give a provisional date when the Ministry will be wound up?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir.

Mr. BETTERTON: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it would be desirable to publish month by month the number of men employed by the Ministry and the approximate cost?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will consider that, but I think in the Return called for by the House that will be included.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: Will the statement include an account of the work of the Ministry of Munitions Supply Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Obviously the supply work carried on by the Ministry must be included.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give a statement of the number of men employed in all the Ministries monthly?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Return is being made. I had the draft before me within the last two days.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will it be monthly?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say without refreshing my memory. It is the periodical Return that was promised. It is to give the House a view of the situation from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (ESTABLISHMENT).

Mr. BETTERTON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of the saving which could be effected in expenditure by a revision of the Royal Air Force establishment, in view of the termination of the War?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): This question has been under constant consideration and a provisional establishment has been drawn up which shows very substantial reductions. That establishment is now undergoing further revision with a view to reducing expenditure. The results will be embodied in the detailed Air Estimates, to the presentation of which, during the: autumn, my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury referred in his answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the 11th instant.

Mr. GRANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the desirability of demobilising the women of his Department?

Major-General SEELY: Yes, Sir. As I announced in my remarks the day before yesterday the women will be reduced very shortly from the large number they were to 3,000, comprising only those employed, on domestic service.

Oral Answers to Questions — YORKSHIRE MINERS' STRIKE.

Major WOOD: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the inclusive cost incurred out of national funds on account of the recent visit of the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications and his staff to Leeds in connection with the coal-mining dispute in Yorkshire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that all the accounts have not yet been received, and I am, therefore, unable to make any statement of the total cost at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIDER, (SALES BY FARMERS).

Captain Sir B. STANIER: 64.
asked whether a farmer can sell cider to the neighbouring farmers within five miles tax free, and yet if he sells to his workmen he has to pay the duty of 4d. per gallon?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Cider made by farmers is not liable to tax unless sold or kept for sale. Duty is payable if a farmer sells the cider to his workmen, but not if lie supplies it to them free of charge, nor if he sells it to a neighbouring farmer for supply by the latter free of charge for consumption on his own farm by persons employed thereon.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SUB-POST OFFICES.

Mr. HIRST: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the duty of any of his officials to satisfy themselves that adequate rates of pay are being given by sub-postmasters in the area under their control; whether it is the practice of his administration to check the reports of such minor officials on the conditions in sub-post offices; whether he has received any such reports with regard to the wages paid in the Blackheath area; whether he will state the standard pay and conditions by which it is his practice to measure the wages and conditions of clerks employed in sub-post offices; and whether, having regard to the widely varying rates paid to shop assistants, he will adopt the rate paid to established Post Office clerks for similar work as the standard by which to judge the wages of the clerks employed on full-time Post Office work by sub-postmasters?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): I beg to refer the hon. Member to my replies to questions on this subject on the 8th July and 5th August. Particulars of the ages, rates of pay and hours of duty of assistants employed on Post Office duties are furnished by sub-postmasters, and these are subject to periodical verification by the Postmaster.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, HARROGATE.

Major KELLEY: 68.
asked the Post master-General if he is aware that new subscribers to the telephone in Harrogate and other towns are anxious to have a connection, but cannot have one because the present switchboards are full, and that the new subscribers are told they must wait until some old subscriber falls out; and whether he proposes to take steps to deal with this state of affairs?

Mr. PEASE: At Harrogate and other places the plant at the exchanges is already used to its full capacity, and until new plant is installed it is not possible to give telephone service to new subscribers promptly. Works of construction are being proceeded with as rapidly as present conditions permit.

MAIL DELIVERIES.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in the early afternoon now frequently take twenty four hours to reach the Eastern counties, and often miss the night mail to Dublin; and whether there is any prospect of the Post Office regaining its pre-war prompt ness in the delivery of mails?

Mr. PEASE: I assume my hon. Friend refers to letters posted in the early afternoon in Central London. If so, I am not aware that there is such delay as is represented. If he will let me have the covers of any of the letters in question, I shall be happy to have inquiry made, and to acquaint him with the result.

Mr. LINDSAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mail service to and from Ireland is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and will he consider the desirability of appointing a small Committee to look into the matter?

Mr. PEASE: I am not in a position to answer the latter part of the question, but I will be very glad to look into any instance which my hon. Friend likes to bring before me.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the censorship in Ireland anything to do with the delay in the delivery of letters on the other side of the water?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Mr. HIRST: 70.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a posi-
tion to make the promised statement with regard to the reinstatement of those Civil servants who refused to undertake military service on conscientious grounds; and whether, having regard to the delay in coming to a decision, he will endeavour to expedite the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer is somewhat long, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

The Government has given careful consideration to this question, and has decided that heads of Departments may, if they so desire, re-employ Civil servants who were exempted from military service on conscientious grounds by their tribunal, or who were subsequently released on the advice of the Central Tribunal to take up work of national importance under the Brace Committee, and whose record of service under that Committee was satisfactory. But any men so employed will be engaged on a temporary basis, and be paid at their former actual rate of remuneration (without increment), or at the rate which would be paid to a temporary substitute performing the duty, whichever is the less, and the period of service will not count either for increment or for pension in their established posts.

Re-employment will not, however, be granted to any Civil servant who was notexempted from military service by his tribunal and who refused, or on the advice of the Central Tribunal was not allowed, to take up work of national importance under the Home Office Committee, or who, after undertaking work under that Committee, broke the conditions of release, and had to be recalled to prison or to the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION (PAMPHLETS).

Mr. ATKEY: 71.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the actual amount of liability incurred and money spent in the publication of the pamphlets by the Ministry of Reconstruction up to date; and what further expenditure is either contracted for or contemplated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I have been asked to answer this question. Up to the present the total cost of the reconstruction pam-
phlets amounts to £11,650. This includes all charges for writing, printing, advertising, and circulation. It is estimated that a further sum of £1,350 will be required for the remaining seven pamphlets which it is proposed to issue.

An HON. MEMBER: Do the authors get any fees for these productions?

Mr. BECK: I am happy to say that in almost every case very distinguished Civil servants, officers, professors, and others have written these pamphlets without charge.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DEMOBILISED SOLDIERS (GLASGOW).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 72.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in Glasgow there are 1,627 demobilised soldiers who cannot secure suitable housing accommodation; and what steps it is proposed to take to meet the situation before the winter sets in?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): I understand that an inquiry was made recently by the City Assessor of Glasgow with the result indicated in the question. As regards the steps being taken to meet the situation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his question on the 7th instant as to the progress of housing schemes in Glasgow. I am informed that the Corporation of Glasgow have been considering the question of providing emergency accommodation, but that so far no practicable means of doing so has been devised. It appears that the only remedy is for the corporation to proceed as quickly as possible with the erection of new houses.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is the number of demobilised soldiers unable to find houses in Glasgow, and Scotland generally, increasing or decreasing from month to month?

Mr. PRATT: I could not answer that question without notice.

Captain W. BENN: Could the hon. Gentleman say how far the restrictions on the imports of building materials is delaying the work?

Mr. PRATT: I do not think that it is delaying the work in the slightest degree.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order in raising this question. It should be reserved for Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MEAT ALLOWANCE (MULTIPLE SHOPS).

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 74.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that under the present system of distribution of meat supplies the owners of multiple butchers' shops are given bulk permits for the whole of their shops; whether this arrangement gives a decided advantage to such owners and to their customers as compared with the owners of single shops and their customers; and whether he will take steps to remedy this differentiation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): Owners of multiple shops are given bulk permits for the whole of their shops; but they are at the same time required to conform to certain directions as to the amount and description of meat which may be sold in such shops. There is thus no differentiation in this matter between single and multiple shops.

TINNED BEEF AND MUTTON.

Mr. HALLAS: 75.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that the Australian meat canning works are hung up and can not get orders from England for tinned beef or mutton, whilst America is exporting to the United Kingdom all that she can at a much higher price than Australia has been able to get all through the War; and can he furnish any explanation of these facts?

Mr. MCCURDY: I have no information to the effect that the Australian meat canning works are unable to find a market in England for any canned goods which may be shipped in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT IN COLD STORAGE.

Brigadier Genera CROFT: 76.
asked what is the number of carcases of mutton, lamb, and beef, respectively, lying in cold storage in Australia and New Zealand; and what portion of the 250 refrigerated steamers under the control of the Ministry of Shipping have been released to bring home these supplies of meat?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to answer this question. The latest information as to stocks of meat in cold storage is as follows:

Beef.
Mutton.
Lamb.



Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Australia
18,072
…
20,210
…
10,737


New Zealand
38,246
…
113,339
…
62,402

All the insulated steamers regularly employed in trading to Australia and New Zealand that were diverted in 1918 to other routes have now been returned to their proper employment, and two other steamers have recently been sent to Australia and New Zealand to assist in relieving the congestion.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is a refrigerated steamer?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A steamer with insulated spaces.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PROMOTION (ROYAL MARINE GUNNERS).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 77.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a number of Royal Marine gunners were recommended for promotion to commissioned rank during the War, but were not promoted because they could not be spared from their particular work during hostilities, and, in consequence, warrant and non-commissioned officers were promoted to commissioned rank over their heads; and, if so, whether there is any prospect of early promotion for these officers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): At the outbreak of war it was found that a large number of additional officers were required immediately, principally for duty in the field as company commanders and for certain shore batteries It was, I am advised, impossible to select these officers to any large extent from the Royal Marine gunners. It was, therefore, decided to select only a limited number of Royal Marine gunners for commissions, and the remainder were chosen from the best of the Royal Marine warrant and non-commissioned officers, the majority of whom were senior in the corps to the non-commissioned officers who had been appointed Royal Marine gunners. It cannot, therefore, be said that they were promoted over the heads of the Royal Marine gunners.

ROYAL FLEET RESERVE (PAY).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 79.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, was the only-branch of the Navy that had received no-increase of pay arising out of the Jerram Report; whether their retaining pay and retiring gratuity had been raised or
whether they remained the same as before the War; and, if they had not been raised, whether, in consideration of the valuable services rendered by this branch of the Navy during the War, the same consideration would be accorded to their claim as had been accorded to other branches of the Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, if still mobilised when the new rates of pay were introduced, received those rates on the same scale as the active service ratings; and when in future they are mobilised they will again receive the new rates. Their peace retainer and gratuity remain as before the War. Claims for an increase of retainer and gratuity were heard by Admiral Jerram's Committee, which did not recommend it.

Sir A. BENN: May I ask whether the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, had any representative on the Consultative Committee attached to Admiral Jerram's Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say off hand. Their case was put; their claims for increased pay were heard by Admiral Jerram. and no change was recommended.

Sir A. S. BENN: Will the Admiralty have the position of the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, fully looked into, if the facts arc laid before them?

OFFICERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 80.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to the fact that owing to the abolition of torpedo-control allowance, gunnery-control allowance, and hard-lying money, officers on destroyers and other small craft was actually worse off than before the recent advances in pay were granted; and, if so, what steps he intended to take to remedy this injustice?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In a few cases, no doubt, the total emoluments received by an officer under the new rates of pay and allowances may be less than the total he received under the old rates of pay. My hon. and gallant Friend should, I suggest, consider the pay and allowances of an officer during his whole career, and, if this is done, the advantages of the new scale are obvious. Further, my hon. and gal-
lant Friend has apparently overlooked Decision No. 40 of the Halsey-Jerram Recommendations, which provides, shortly, that any officer whose old rate of pay plus allowances is greater than the new rate, can, so long as he continues to hold the appointment which carried with it an allowance, continue to receive the same until his new rate equals or exceeds his old rate of pay and allowances. This seems to obviate any injustice.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is satisfactory that these officers on destroyers and other small craft are really to be paid no higher salary than they were receiving previously, when the opinion of the House was that it was inadequate?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will do me the favour of reading the decision I have referred to, and another decision under which the Admiralty retain discretionary power to pay these allowances for special stations.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that that is apparently not known, and that numerous officers on numerous destroyers are finding that they are actually worse off to-day?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If they still have the duty resting on thorn they can continue with their old rate of pay and allowances until those two reach the new rate of pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROSYTH GARDEN CITY.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 78.
asked what has been the cost to the Treasury of the Rosyth Garden City in respect of rents during the four months between 1st April and 1st August this year; and whether this sum may be taken as a guide to the future annual cost to the country of this housing scheme?

Mr. PRATT: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed by the Scottish Board of Health that there has been no deficit to be met by them up to the present on the Rosyth housing scheme, and that the housing cost operations for the current year will now show a loss. This is due to the fact that houses begin to produce rent in less than a year from the date on which building is begun, while, interest on costing in terms of the Minute
of Agreement with the Scottish National Housing Company is not charged to revenue until after one year from that date. It is estimated that in a normal year the company's annual deficit falling on the Board on the basis of schemes so far authorised will be from £16,000 to £17,000, exclusive of the further annual cost which will be entailed in consequence of the loan of from £800,000 to £900,000 of Government Funds at 3½ per cent.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: How many houses are comprised in this scheme?

Mr. PRATT: One thousand six hundred houses.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that upwards of £1,000,000 was lent to the National Housing Company at 3 per cent., which was raised during the War to 5 per cent., and in any return will he include the difference between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. incurred in connection with these loans?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABERDEEN FISHEEY TRADE.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: 82.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions why his Department had not yet removed the flax belonging to the Government which occupied part of the fish market of Aberdeen to the serious detriment of the fishery trade there?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The removal of the flax in question has commenced, and will be completed during next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Captain Sir DOUGLAS HALL: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to state between what hours it was permissible to sell intoxicating liquor to the public at Weston-super-Mare?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have no official information as to the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold at Weston-super-Mare, the town not being situate in an area scheduled by the Central Control Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUFFOLK AERODROMES (RELEASE OF LABOURERS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he had now given instructions to release from the Orfordness and Aldeburgh aerodromes agricultural labourers employed there, so that their labour might be available in the harvest field in that district of Suffolk; and whether these men employed at Orfordness and Aldeburgh were amongst the 70,000 whom Sir J. Hunter described as not having earned their money?

Major-General SEELY: The men at Aldeburgh and Orfordness, employed on the removal of the surplus material referred to in my previous answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question of the 16th July have now been reduced to six and thirty-three respectively. Instructions have been issued to the resident ergineer-in-charge that any bond fide agricultural labourers included amongst them shall be immediately released for work on the land. There are, in addition, forty men who have been employed for some weeks by the Air Ministry on the very urgent work of repairing sluices and sea-walls. I understand that some local labour may be included in this number, but as it is considered that such labour is the most suitable for the purpose it is not possible to dispense with these men until their work is finished, which it is expected will be in about a month from now. I am not aware whether Sir J. Hunter had in mind Aldeburgh and Orfordness when he made the statement referred to.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has the work on this aerodrome been carried on under the "time and line" contract system, under which the more money a contractor manages to expend the greater his reward?

Major-General SEELY: I must have notice of that.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Were these two aerodromes not started to meet the submarine menace?

Major-General SEELY: The hon. and gallant Member is in error in thinking that. They were started long before the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT (COMPETITIVE DESIGNS).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether it was proposed to hold a competition for commercial types of aircraft ; and, if so, when particulars would be published?

Major-General SEELY: Yes, Sir. During the War the paramount necessity in aircraft design was military efficiency, but for the successful development of aviation the first essential is safety. The Government have accordingly decided to institute a competition with a view to obtaining a type giving greater safety. Any machine which succeeds in qualifying will represent a great advance in respect of safety and comfort over any machine at present in use. The Treasury have agreed to the competition, and I am sure that, even at this juncture, the House will not grudge the funds for the prizes. Prizes will be offered for three types of aircraft—a smaller aeroplane, a larger aeroplane, and a seaplane, respectively. In addition to the advantage to civil aviation the lessons learnt will be of the greatest value to the Royal Air Force The precise terms of the competition will be announced in a few days. If all the competitions are won, the amount required for prizes would be about £64,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS INSTALLATION TO EGYPT.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I Lave given him private notice, namely; Whether he is aware that the Government is proposing to instal in England and in Egypt a wireless system based upon obsolete patterns which are being discarded by other countries, and whether before committing the country to what may be wasteful expenditure of money he will have special inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. PEASE: I have been asked to answer this question. The wireless stations which are being provided in England and Egypt are not of an obsolete pattern. The system decided on has only been adopted after full inquiry. The leading Government experts have been consulted and the best independent advice has been obtained. I am informed that stations in France and Italy, which employ a similar
system, have been extremely successful in communicating with the United States. The United States Government have one station equipped with the Alexanders on alternator, and the French are installing the Latour alternator at certain stations; but I am informed that it is not proposed to dispense with the arc system in either case. The Government are advised that neither the American nor the French alternator has obtained such a degree of development as to justify its employment with the Oxford and Cairo stations, which it is proposed to complete without delay.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Have these things long been discarded by the Marconi Company as useless and ineffective, and is it a fact that the engineers constructing the stations have never had the remotest experience in long-distance wireless telegraphy?

Mr. PEASE: I cannot answer in regard to the experience of the engineers, but this has been adopted after very full inquiry by various experts and after having outside evidence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: I would like to ask the Leader of the House to make a statement as to the business and as to the adjournment of the House for the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow we propose to take the Second Reading of the Scottish Land Settlement Bill.
On Monday there will be the Motion for the Adjournment, and the Prime Minister will make a statement. The Motion will take the form that the Adjournment is to take effect when the Royal Assent has been given to certain Bills, which we hope will be on Tuesday.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the suggestion I made yesterday— that after the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, the Debate on the Second Reading of the Scottish Land Settlement Bill should be adjourned until after the Recess; whether he is aware that certain informal conversations have taken place on the matter, and that there is considerable assent to that proposal among Scottish Members?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a question for my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot). The House will meet at the usual time. When I said I would consider the question I thought it would not be possible to give the whole of Friday for the Second Reading. Now it will be possible, as far as I can see, and I hope it will be possible to get the Second Reading. If we find there is a great demand on the part of Members to discuss it further, we will consider the matter to-morrow.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the members from the biggest crofting and small holdings areas have never heard of this conference?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole point is that Scottish rural Members will not have time to consider the Bill, and, in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is very anxious that he should have the views of the constituencies on this Bill, after the Recess, would it not be much better to adjourn the Debate, in order that we may come back from the constituencies and in continuing the Debate give the Secretary for Scotland some idea as to the Amendments to be proposed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that if it appears to-morrow that there would be an advantage in that course we will consider it. The idea was that discussion before the Adjournment would be useful. It is obvious that discussion which docs not take place cannot be useful.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it intended to take any other business on Friday or Monday, such as the Lords Amendments to the Welsh Church (Temporalities) Bill and the Transport Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to get through all the Lords Amendments to-day, except those to be considered, and those we will take either on Monday or Tuesday as they are made. I will communicate with the Noble Lord as to when they will be taken.

Ordered, "That Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Coal Mines Bill,
Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Bill,
Labourers (Ireland) Bill,
War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Forestry Bill [Lords], with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation." [Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Ministry of Transport Bill.

That they do not insist upon one of their Amendments with which this House hath disagreed; they agree with certain of the Amendments made by this House to certain of their Amendments; they disagree with another of the Amendments made by this House to one of their Amendments, for which disagreement they assign a reason; and they agree with another Amendment made by this House to one of their Amendments with an Amendment.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow. Bill 194.]

AGRICULTURAL LANDS SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

LABOUREES (IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

BILL PRESENTED.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL,—"to make further provision for the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation, and drainage, and other purposes relating to agriculture in Scotland; to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the enactments relating to allotments; and otherwise to facilitate Land settlement in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Orders of the Day — PROFITEERING BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Operations of Trusts, etc.)

(1) The Board of Trade shall obtain from all available sources information as to the nature, extent, and development of trusts, companies, firms, combinations, agreements, and arrangements connected with mining, manufactures, trade, commerce, finance, or transport, having for their purpose or effect the regulation of the prices or output of commodities or services produced or rendered in the United Kingdom or imported into the United Kingdom, or the de limitation of markets in respect thereof, or the regulation of transport rates and services, in so far as they tend to the creation of monopolies or to the restraint of trade.

(2) If, in the opinion of the Board, as the result of investigations undertaken on its own initiative or on complaints made to it, there is prima facie evidence that the public interest is adversely affected, by the operation of any monopoly, combination, or agreement, the Board of Trade shall refer the whole matter to the tribunal hereinafter mentioned for investigation and report.

(3) There shall be established a tribunal consisting of a person of legal qualifications, as permanent chairman, and not less than two, or more than seven, other members selected by him from time to time from a panel appointed for the purpose by the President of the Board of Trade, after considering nominations made by representative trade organisations, including the co-operative movement and trade unions, which tribunal shall have power on reference from the Board of Trade to investigate the operation of any organisation specified in Sub-section (1) of this Section, and for that purpose to call for all books and papers, to take evidence upon oath, and to adopt such other measures of inquiry as it may deem necessary to elicit the facts; and when it shall be proved that acts injurious to the public interest have been committed, such facts as are relevant to the particular offence shall be published immediately on the conclusion of each inquiry.

(4) The Board of Trade shall make an Order for the remedying of any grievances which the tribunal may find to be established, and such Order may include provisions suspending the operations of the organisation which has been the subject of inquiry and imposing penalties.—[Mr. Tyson Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
We believe that if the question of profiteering is to be effectively dealt with it should be done as is proposed in Sub-Section (1) of this proposed new Clause. Sub-section (2) then gives power to the Board of Trade to refer the matter to a tribunal for investigation and report. The suggested tribunal is detailed in Sub-
section (3), and we are of the opinion that tribunals so constituted would command public confidence. The Clause is, practically speaking, the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into the question of trusts. If this Clause is inserted in the Bill, we believe that the Bill will be considerably strengthened, and will be administered in such a way that it will give general satisfaction throughout the country; and, unless it is accepted, the Bill will not operate as the Government expect it will operate. I therefore appeal to the Government to accept the new Clause. We are prepared to accept alteration in the wording, so long as the principle is not affected. If the Bill is not strengthened in this way it will not be satisfactory.

Mr. A. DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
I beg to second the Motion.

4.0 P.M.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I could have no objection to the spirit and intention of this Clause, because the spirit and intention of this Clause are precisely the same as the spirit and intention of the Clauses which stand in the Bill as amended in Committee, with one exception, to which I shall refer. I have studied this Clause very carefully, and I find that it confers no powers, with the exception to which I shall refer, which do not already exist in the Bill. There is complete power for the Board of Trade "to obtain from all available sources information as to the nature, extent, and development of trusts, companies, firms, combinations, agreements, and arrangements." Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause gives power to refer the whole matter to a tribunal, and Sub-section (3) deals with the constitution of the tribunal. Let us take the Bill as it stands now There is under it power of investigation, power to refer examination to a tribunal, power to appoint the tribunal, and power to deal with the situation as it is found to exist, and the Board of Trade may, as the result of such investigation, fix maximum prices, or by Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the Board of Trade may take the case before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and penalties may be imposed. The only point not taken in the Bill, and the only difference of the Bill from this Clause, is that contained in Sub-section (4) of the new Clause. The power suggested there is really an extraordinary power. It is proposed that the Board of
Trade shall make an Order for the remedying of any grievances which the tribunal may find to be established, and such Order may include provisions sus-pending the operations of the organisation which has been the subject of inquiry, and imposing penalties. So the Board of Trade might suspend under this Clause the action of the business without any reference to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and might impose penalties equally without any reference to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. These would be far too great powers for a Government Department to possess—perfectly unprecedented powers.

Mr. T. WILSON: The Bill is unprecedented.

Sir A. GEDDES: We are dealing in an unprecedented way already with this subject, but this proposal is more unprecedented. If a situation were found to exist, as it might well be, and as I believe on investigation it will be—for I have seen much of the evidence laid before the Committee on Trusts which was not published, and that information shows one that such organisations in restraint of trade do exist, or at least there is very strong evidence for believing that they exist—at the same time I am quite sure that the proper way to deal with it is after full investigation, when the facts are all before us. If the powers existing are not sufficient to cope with the situation, then the Board of Trade could come to this House and ask for specific powers from Parliament, and one of the purposes of this Bill to check profiteering is to allow us to get under way this preliminary investigation which this Clause provides for in its first Subsection. There are certain powers to deal with the lesser evils; there are powers actually in the Bill to get prosecution, and if the Court finds the individuals guilty of making unreasonable profit, to get punishment; but these great evils, if they exist in any way similar to that foreshadowed in the evidence laid before the Committee on Trusts, cannot be dealt with so simply as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction can deal with an offence. If some of these great combinations have to be dealt with, if their beneficial results are not to ho lost to the country because they have also results which are the opposite of beneficial, then, surely, the procedure must be quite different from that indicated in the Amendment. It must be thought out, studied by Parliament itself, and decided by Parliament, and so I
would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that, although I am in full sympathy with the Clause that he has moved, I am able to assure him also that the powers, in so far as they can be used when used properly, are already contained in the Bill, and, in view of that, I hope he will not press his Clause

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very astonished to have heard the extraordinary speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends who support this Clause will press it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Committee on Trusts, and to certain evidence which is not laid before Parliament. I am open to correction, but I believe in that case it is. incumbent on the Minister to lay that evidence before Parliament, if it affects the whole case of such a very vital Bill as this, affecting every man, woman, and child in the country. The Amendment is accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend, with the exception of Sub-clause (4), and if that is the case I think it is very essential that it should be embodied in the Bill, first, because this Bill has been criticised outside on the ground that it is attacking the small man by the system of little local councils and is leaving the big trust untouched. The Minister declares—I am sure sincerely—that that is not the case. Then why not put this in the Bill and meet that criticism half-way? If later on legal quibbles by very rich corporations are brought up in the Courts, and carried, possibly, up to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it would be possible for skilled lawyers to point to dates and to the Bill itself, and to the grave fact that the words "trusts, combines, and monopolies," and so on, are never mentioned in the Bill. During the last hours of this morning's sitting we tried hard to get these words put into the Bill, and we got a sort of half-hearted concession from the Attorney-General finally, and after tremendous difficulties.
As regards Sub-section (4), this is absolutely crucial. Let us look at it from a world-wide point of view. We are not informed what the Supreme Economic Council is doing, but we hope it is taking international action to deal with these big trusts, and, if anyone has studied the Report of the Committee on Trusts or followed the Debates and the legislation in America to deal with these trusts, he will have been impressed with the tremendous
difficulty of dealing with their international ramifications. The only way in which the democracies of the world can meet the big combinations which have become international is by international action through the Supreme Economic Council of the League of Nations. We will suppose that that Council is really getting ahead with this matter. I do not know that it is, and I get very elusive answers to my questions in this House, but we will hope that it is. It may then request each member of each country represented on the Council to represent to his Government that immediate and simultaneous steps may be taken—a kind of unity of front—to deal with some big international combine that may be holding up wheat, or meat, or some other staple commodity. In that case it is most necessary that the Board of Trade should have the power to make an Order for remedying any grievance that the tribunal may find to be established on evidence supplied by the Supreme Economic Council, and such Order should include power to suspend the organisation. Surely that is most reasonable and necessary, if only we take a world-wide view of this great and pressing problem, and not the miserable parochial view that has been so far taken by the Government. We are faced with a great and unprecedented situation, and I appeal to my hon. Friends on these benches to be firm in their views, especially in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who, I think, knows as much about this subject as anyone in this House. Look with vision now, once and for all, at this matter. This little Bill is not going to bring down the price of living. The only way we can do that is by international control of raw materials and food at their source, and it is the great world-wide measures which will be the international legislation of the future that this Clause will apply to. I hope that this will be carried to a Division.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member through his picture of world-wide legislation. I am afraid it is likely to prove as inadequate as his statement about the liability of a Ministry to produce documents.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said I was open to correction.

Sir C. WARNER: That liability to produce documents is only in respect of documents they have quoted, and the President of the Board of Trade has not quoted any documents. I would appeal to the Government to accept the first paragraph of this new Clause. Those who listened to the Debate yesterday will realise, I think, that the Bill is a Bill aimed against the small trader. It is quite true, we know, that it is not meant to have that object, and I am confident the Government does not wish it to, but it looks like it, and it is not enough for the Government to say that they mean to deal with the big trusts. I think there ought to be an Instruction in the Bill as to how the Bill is to be worked, and as to what is to be done by the Department, and the first paragraph of this Clause is, I think, very important. It is an important instruction to work the Bill so as to get information, and, exactly as the Minister said, prepare the way for bringing these trusts to book and making some impression in preventing their nefarious work. I do not think it very much matters whether we put the penal Clauses in now or whether we have to wait till the Ministry has decided that they have got proof of such a thing, when this House will not be slow in giving them powers. You have only got to have a strong case of some serious criminal work going on, and this House is only too ready to support the Government in putting it down. But I think it is necessary to have this first Subsection, and as it is only a six months' Bill, I think that is another reason for leaving out the Sub-sections exacting punishment, because these things will be growing more and more in the future. Trusts are things that require more Government attention from year to year, and I think the punishment for the nefarious dealings of trusts is one that ought to be permanent, one that ought to be founded on thorough knowledge of what they do wrong, and not drawn up in a six months' Bill before we know what is really going on. Let us have it as an Instruction in the Bill that the Department shall go into this matter, shall investigate and find out what is wrong, and then, if the powers already contained in the Bill are insufficient, there will be very little difficulty in getting further powers. I do not think anything you put in here, such as appealing to a tribunal of this sort, would be really sufficient. It may be that the public is being robbed of millions in some cases. Would such a tribunal as is set up
in this Clause be sufficient to deal with a case of that sort? Should we not want the highest judges in the land to try such cases? I think it is the case that, though we want to find out the trouble and sec it distinctly laid down in the Bill that the Government shall go into the matter and find it out, the rest of the Clause is unimportant at the present moment.

Mr. RAFFAN: The hon. Baronet argued his point of view with great force, as he always does, but I am not quite sure he has sufficiently kept in mind the effect on opinion in the country of adopting the suggestion he has made. With regard to the whole subject-matter of this Bill, it is, I presume, sufficiently evident to every Member of the House that there has not been full and detailed inquiry before deciding upon the offences and the punishment. I do not say that entirely by way of criticism. The Government, perhaps, feel it necessary to proceed with the Bill without that inquiry, and to leave this matter entirely untouched. But without that additional inquiry, you impose penalties upon every small trader who is found guilty of an offence which is by no means clearly defined, and I do suggest that when you are dealing with great trusts and great combinations, and confine your action merely to asking for information and laying down no penalty, it will leave a bad impression upon the community.

Sir C.WARNER: The penalties in the Bill are there, and it is making a special tribunal and a special penalty in this particular case.

Mr. RAFFAN: Yes, but may I remind the hon. Baronet that the result of the inquiries asked for in the first Sub-section of my hon. Friend's Clause will be to disclose facts that the public have been robbed to the extent of millions? What penalty is imposed by the Bill? Those who conduct these nefarious operations-robbing the community to the extent of millions—if brought up, can only be penalised to the extent of £200.

Sir C. WARNER: And imprisonment.

Mr. RAFFAN: Yes, but I do suggest that the Court will find it very, very difficult indeed to secure that the people who have really benefited to the extent of these millions are the people to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment. At any rate, I do not suggest that my hon. Friend has found in every respect absolutely the best solution,
but I do suggest that if you have to take provisional action during the six months, it is right you should adopt, not merely his first suggestion, as the hon. Baronet suggests, but experiment with the whole of the suggestion. If, during the six months, experience teaches us it is necessary to adopt other provisions, I am quite sure we should have the amending legislation ; but I do hope that, unless the Government meet my hon. Friend more fully than they have done, my hon. Friend will take the sense of the House upon this question, because I am quite sure the country will not think the Government or the House of Commons are in earnest in their attempt to deal with profiteering if you only provide penalties which will catch the small men and leave the main offenders entirely untouched. I must say— and I am sure my right hon. Friend will excuse me for saying—that I do feel he spoke with undue modesty when ho, suggested these powers were too great to confer on his Department. With reference to that matter, I do suggest that, at any rate, the power of suspending the operation of a trust or combination, which is found to be working injuriously against the interest of the community, is at least the power ho ought to have himself, and I suggest that if he does not take steps to arm himself with that power, it will be impossible for him to strike at the real causes of the, evil. For these reasons, I support the Clause of my hon. Friend, and if he goes to a Division I shall certainly vote for the Clause.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to join in the appeal to the President of the Board of Trade that he should give more consideration to the Clause—if not the whole, at least down to Sub-section (3). He said he was absolutely in sympathy with the desire, and he suggested that the powers there conferred were already to a large extent in the Bill. I think he will agree that the Clause, as tabled, is decidedly more explicit, and covers rather wider ground than anything in the Bill. I think he will find some difficulty in absolutely resisting this Clause, because it is taken word for word, so far as the first three Sub-sections are concerned, from the Report of the Committee on Trusts, which was a very representative Committee appointed by the Government, and, unlike many Committees, it submitted a unanimous Report. I quite agree with the criticism which has been made of the fourth Sub-section, and the hon. and gallant
Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) and myself tabled an Amendment which would alter the new Clause, so that, instead of the Board of Trade having arbitrary power, Parliament itself should be the final tribunal on this matter. I think that is in general keeping with the desire of the House. At any rate, let us have the first three Sub-sections of this Clause. The Committee who reported realised the growing evil of these trusts, and unanimously desired that this full investigation should be undertaken, so that the truth of the fears could be ascertained, and, if the evil were there, the necessary legislation should be made by Parliament.

Captain BOWYER: In the hope that perhaps one more voice joining in the appeal may influence the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to say that I would go further than the hon. Baronet, who, I think, would have liked the first Subsection included. I think the first three Sub-sections might well be included, as the words "monopolies" and "trusts" are not included in the Bill as it is before the House. I think it eminently important they should be in the Bill, if only for the purpose of direction. Sub-section (1) of the proposed new Clause says
The Board of Trade shall obtain from all available sources information as to the nature, extent, and development of trusts, companies," etc.
I think that information, if obtained by the Board of Trade, would be very useful, not only for the six months, which perhaps would not give them time to deal with it, but would be information very useful for them and for future action as well.

Mr. RENDALL: I do not quite understand the position which the right hon. Gentleman takes up. As I understand, he has no objection to the first two Subsections of this new Clause, but he has not said definitely whether he is going to accept them, and, therefore, we are in the difficult position of not knowing the final view he is going to take on this matter. It seems to me that Sub-section (3) is certainly a valuable one, and the same applies to Sub-section (4). If he feels that, passed in its present form, it would go too far, at least he might accept some Amendment to Sub-section (4), and make that Sub-section, instead of absolutely prohibiting the operation of any company, syndicate or trust, give power to the tri-
bunal established by Sub-section (3) to lay down the conditions on which a company, syndicate, or trust shall operate in future. The power to propose limitation might be fairly put in the hands of the tribunal, because primâ facie the tribunal would have already decided that the syndicate or trust had done what was wrong, and against the interests of the community, and, consequently, it is not reasonable that that tribunal, which has probably taken a great deal of trouble in coming to their decision, should only be allowed to inflict a fine. We all know you cannot imprison the secretary of a company or all the directors, or all the shareholders, and the imprisonment is therefore what is called a "wash-out." There certainly cannot be any imprisonment in this Clause against a syndicate or trust and you can only fine them £200. It is quite true, under the Act, they can be made to repay all their ill-gotten gains, but that is extremely difficult, for primâ facie they have been carrying on business for weeks, months, or years. I do suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might accept the whole Clause, which would go along way to satisfy public opinion, and make the public understand that the Government is sincere in really trying to go for the big syndicate, and not merely for the small shopkeeper. If he would accept Sub-section (4) in an amended form, to allow the tribunal to make an Order limiting the methods of the defaulting or miscreant trust, and give the tribunal power to lay down conditions on which it should trade in the future, I think something valuable would be done.

Major BARNES: I should like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to modify the attitude he has taken up with regard to this Clause. If I understood what he said, it was that he thought this Clause did not extend either his duties or his powers in the direction in which he thought they ought to be extended, although the latter part of the Clause gave him powers he ought not to have. I think he is hardly taking the right view there, because if one looks at the Bill as it stands, I do not think it gives him at the present time power to inquire into the large matters referred to in this Clause. Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 gives the Board of Trade power to investigate prices, costs, and profit, but only in respect of.any article. He has no power
under the Bill to go into the large question of the nature, extent, and development of trusts, companies, etc., such as is suggested in this new Clause. I think if he intends to go into that at all, it would be wise to take these explicitly declared larger powers, and I am quite sure the sense of the House is with me when I say the insertion of a Clause of this kind in the Bill would give to the country a feeling that the Government had visualised the whole extent of this problem, and that they really saw it as a big thing, and not as a little thing, and that is what we do want the country to realise.
There are two Amendments down in my name, and in that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson), and these, I think, will somewhat remove the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, because they would place upon him a duty which he has certainly not got under the Bill. I propose to add after the word "firms" the words "trade unions," so that the right hon. Gentleman may inquire into the effect of combinations of labour as well as combinations of capital upon the regulation of prices and outputs. Then in the following Amendment I propose to take away from this Clause the large powers which it is thought he ought not to be entrusted with. If I correctly interpret the feelings of the House by my own hon. Members do not want now to listen to long speeches, and I am not going to inflict one; but I just want to say a word or two on what is the problem before us. We are in an extraordinary situation. We have got an extraordinary profiteering Bill. Some people do not think so; but I think it is a good Bill. I think—if I may say so—it is a Bill which reflects the very greatest credit on the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced it, and met this emergency.
What is the situation? What is the Bill? It is a situation in which high prices and a scarcity of commodities are the outstanding features. The Bill is to deal with those things. When we ask ourselves how is it prices are high and commodities scarce, we find two answers given, and these depend upon the quarter of the House whence they come. If you inquire from quarters on this side of the House you are told that high prices and scarcity of commodities are because of combinations of capital; that these combinations restrict output, and so raise prices. If you ask for an answer from other quarters of the House you are told
that the conditions I have mentioned are caused by combinations of labour; that they are owing to trade union rules, and the policy known as "ca' canny," by which you have restriction of output. But we have not got the practical knowledge we should have. A great many people in the country are outside those two points of dispute. They want to know the truth. They desire to know what is the real situation. They want to know whether it is the fact that trusts, rings, and combines do restrict output, and do send up prices. They ask: Is it a fact that the policy of trade unions, working through their branches and through their members, decreases production? The country wants to be satisfied on these points. The right hon. Gentleman has that opportunity. He has not only the opportunity but the responsibility laid upon him at this time to make this inquiry, and so satisfy this House and the country as to where the truth is. For my own part, I believe the whole truth does not lie on either side. There are some people who believe that combinations of capital are an unmixed evil. I do not believe that. I believe we owe a great deal of the prosperity of this country, and of the world, to the great combinations of capital which have taken place. On the other hand, there are people who think that combinations of labour are an unmixed blessing. I do not think that either. I think that in the great combinations of labour we do get at times there is evidence that they work against the general efficiency of the country. All I want to say now—because I do not want to speak again, but merely formally to move my Amendments which are put down in the friendliest spirit—is that since I have been in the House—and I have not been here long—I have over and over again had more sympathy with the line taken by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House than by any other section. I have voted with them often. But here is a chance for the House to take a big, impartial survey of this question, to investigate all sides, and endeavour to place the country in possession of the real truth—as to whether the operations of rings, combines, great trade trusts, and corners are evil in the way suggested by this Amendment, and whether, on the other hand, from the operation of great combinations of labour, we are suffering in a way that many hon. Members of the House think.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the sense of the House and the sense of the country demand that he shall take up the work we are trying to place upon him, through his great Department, and by the means at his disposal, and that he will conduct his great investigation, and give us what we want more than anything else—that is knowledge !

Mr. G. THORNE: I would just add one word to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the appeal to him to reconsider his decision comes from every section of the House. Everyone who has spoken has supported the appeal, and I desire to associate myself with it very heartily indeed. I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.

Sir A. GEDDES: By permission of the House I should like to speak again. When I appeared before the Select Committee upstairs as a witness I took as my basis in explaining what we proposed to do the Committee on Trusts. I described the central tribunals set out in this Amendment as the sort of tribunal which we intended to set up. On the Second Reading of the Bill I again explained that this was precisely what we wanted to do. Yesterday, as hon. Members will remember, on the very first Amendment I again referred to this Amendment and to this tribunal. These are the steps we propose to take, in so far as it is possible to take steps of this nature, and on this scale, within the six months. When we were dealing with the Patents and Designs Bill in this House I informed the House that it was our intention after the Recess to introduce legislation as comprehensive as we could make it to deal with this evil. I said, if I recollect aright, that we were going to base that legislation on the Report of the Committee on Trusts. As a matter of fact, in the preliminary draft we have such Clauses almost absolutely verbatim, because they are taken from exactly the same source as my right hon. Friend opposite has taken his proposed Amendment.
Therefore, I cannot say that I dislike the Clauses, or that I disapprove of them; because four times publicly I have said that that is what we want to do. But really in a Bill of this nature, and drafted as it is, I do not think it would be reasonable to insert the whole of these provisions, because they would really mean nothing;
permanent legislation must come on to replace this measure. If we are to have permanent machinery, well, this is certainly not permanent machinery. So I would be prepared to accept the first part of this Amendment, which will, as it were, be putting a poster out to show what we are doing—a sort of manifesto which does not add anything to the powers; something in this form—"Without prejudice to the general powers under this Act"; subsequently—" the Board of Trade shall use their available resources so to appoint "—and then to say later
And the Board of Trade shall, for the purposes of this Section, utilise the powers of investigation and of appointing committees conferred upon them by this Act.
This is not an intimation that I do not agree with the various speakers. But we do really not want this in a temporary Act. This Act will enable us to put up the scaffolding on which the permanent structure can be erected, and it would be a mistake to burden it with the whole of these long provisions. If my right hon. Friend will accept what I offer I shall be glad. There is great force in the points very forcibly put from different parts of the House, and I confess the Act itself does not appear to meet them. If we accept an Amendment of this sort it will meet them.

Mr. T. WILSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer. At the same time I am rather sorry he has not gone the whole way. My proposed Sub-section (1) would have inspired confidence in the minds of the people of the country who are grumbling in regard to the prices they have to pay for everything they eat and wear. It would also tend to allay a lot of the unrest among, what I call, the great demobilised army. They feel very strongly on some of these matters. Only in the newspapers this morning you find the general opinion is apparently expressed that the Bill, as it left the House of Commons early this. morning, is really only tinkering with the subject. I fully recognise the difficulty of getting into a Bill of this kind, which is only a temporary measure, the whole of this proposed new Clause, and if my Seconder agrees, I am prepared to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman. May I also, if I am in order, appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that if they persist in their Amendment to bring trade unions into this proposed Amendment it will also mean the addition of employers federations, associations, industrial
leagues, and similar bodies, I would suggest they do not press their Amendments at the present time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1), after (1), insert the words
Without prejudice to the generality of the powers under this Act."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

In Sub-section (1), after the word "trade"["or to the restraint of trade"], add the words
and the Hoard of Trade shall, for the purposes of this Section, utilise the powers of investigation and of appointing committees conferred upon them by this Act. —[Sir A. Geddes.]

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Government have gone some way to meet the situation. 1 am not quite satisfied. I was, unfortunately, called out of the House, and I did not hear the whole of the discussion, of what my right hon. Friend the President said, though 1 dare say he has given excellent reasons for the action he has taken. I am not quite satisfied that the Government are right in striking out, at any rate, Sub-sections (2) and (3). I am rather inclined to think that the machinery there provided is more effective, and will be more pointed, than anything contained so far in the machinery of the Bill. I am afraid I do not think very much of the Bill. In its practical aspect I do not think it will do. Its merit is this: It is what was described by an hon. Member on the Front Bench last night as a manifesto. There is something, after all, in a manifesto. It is not very much, but there is something, and if we are going to treat the Bill mainly as a manifesto, then since all of us feel profoundly that there is an evil infinitely greater and more dangerous than casual profiteering by the local retailer, and that is the evil of trusts as they exist in some other countries and to some extent I am afraid in this country. I do think there is something to be said for making your manifesto pretty definite and emphatic when dealing with trusts. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that Sub-section (4) is unworkable and tries to do too much. I was rather attracted by what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said about international action, which I think it is important should be kept in view,
and with the existence of the League of Nations should always be remembered as one of the factors that has to govern our outlook on all these things. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member opposite for having called attention to it, but he must recognise that the League is not in existence until the Treaties are ratified, and therefore an argument for the existence of Sub-section (4), and what the League of Nations may do when it comes into existence in connection with the general economic organisation of the world is, I think, a little premature.
It may be that legislation in all the countries will be required to carry out the policy of the League of Nations, but surely we ought to see the policy first before we provide machinery to carry it out, otherwise that machinery may prove altogether inappropriate. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for having made that reference, although I agree with the course suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. I ask the right hon. Gentleman even at this stage to consider whether he could not do something to make this rather more emphatic as a manifesto. We are merely having Sub-section (1) with a slight addition, and I am not sure that the people outside will realise that this House is in earnest when it says that it regards trusts rings, and combinations for the benefit of individuals and to the prejudice of the whole community as among the most dangerous economic developments of the present day. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able, if not here at least elsewhere, to insert Something striking in his manifesto as far as this part of the question is concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to reinforce the arguments of my right hon. Friend opposite. The Government have been forced by popular clamour to bring in these proposals, and when that same popular clamour has become well informed it will demand a policy of worldwide international action, and the Government should have its powers ready in case some grave emergency may happen during the long looked for holidays. I beg-the right hon. Gentleman to see whether some form of words cannot be devised giving us a little more power to deal with this extraordinary world-wide situation in case the League of Nations is brought into being more quickly than we anticipate.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman
(Lord R. Cecil), although I do not quite understand what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who has spoken of world-wide action and other sonorous phrases of that kind. I think this question should be taken into consideration by the Government. I imagine the view of the right hon. Gentleman is much the same as my own in regard to this Bill as a whole. I regard it as being so weak that it does not deal with what is, after all, the principle cause of complaint of the ordinary member of the public, which is not so much in regard to the small tradesmen in the country districts, but what is at the back of the mind of the ordinary member of the public is the impression that somewhere in this country people on a large scale are speculating in regard to the necessities of life. On a former occasion when I said that it was a scandal that a man should be richer as the result of this War. some hon. Member asked, "Why?" I then said I hoped nobody ought to be richer by the War, and I hope there is no hon. Member of this House who is richer on that account.
There is a widespread impression which may be absolutely wrong that people who are not agitators but who are described in America as good citizens have been indulging in hanky-panky speculations in the form of combines. I think the Government would have shown their sincere desire to deal with the real causes of this discontent better had they adopted the Amendment which has been moved from the benches opposite. My Noble Friend said that this really was a manifesto against profiteering, and to use a military phrase it is their operation orders. The Government, however, seem to have left out what ought to be the ultimate object of their attack. The small trader is, after all, not the real profiteer, because the real profiteers are entrenched behind barbed wire and honours, and they are difficult to get at. The President is a far cleverer man than I am, or those who have addressed him, and he knows in his own mind that the real people he ought to get at are not small traders but the big monopolists. I support the principle of this Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Mr. NEAL: The particular Amendment before the House is the omission of the three Sub-sections, which will leave only
one, which declares the duty of the Board of Trade for the terms of this Act, which is six months. Surely it is the perpetual duty of the Board of Trade to keep itself informed and make the inquiries. It says that the Board of Trade shall obtain information from all available sources. I should have thought it was the obvious duty of the Board of Trade, in charge of the administration of commerce, to be always making such inquiries and keeping such things up to date as far as possible. What I fear is the possibility of there being some misconception if this proposal stands alone. Might it not be logically said that there was this duty upon the Board of Trade, for six months only, to make those inquiries? I apprehend that very little indeed will be done in that six months. There will be Departmental inquiries. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be nothing in this Bill that would enable him to make such inquiries with greater powers than he has at this moment. If he looks at the powers conferred by Clause 1 of this Bill, he will see that he has power in respect of any article to make further investigations as to price, cost, and profit, and to receive and investigate complaints. Surely those powers would not assist him in the least in an inquiry as to whether a particular combination of trade was or was not for the benefit of the State or contrary to the interests of the community !
Similarly, if you look at the power given under the Bill without the whole of this Clause, there is given to the right hon. Gentleman the right to establish or call on local authorities to establish a certain committee, to whom the Board of Trade may delegate any of their powers under this Act in respect of articles or classes of articles. I suggest that this proposal would not help in the least in an inquiry as to whether a combine was beneficial or prejudicial to the interests of the State. The word manifesto has been used, but this is not even a manifesto. It is simply a statement that during the period the Act is in force the Board of Trade may conduct certain investigations within its own Department which I should have thought it had already the right and power of conducting. Personally I would rather this proposal went out altogether than it should be allowed to stand alone. If anything is to be done I should have thought it was desirable to establish a tribunal
ad hoc, and it should be given very adequate and full powers to make the investigations necessary. If the President was able to assure the House that by the time we meet again he will be in a position to bring forward some comprehensive measure dealing with this evil, which is too big to be dealt with in a few lines by an emasculated new Clause brought in on the Report stage, that would be a manifesto of value to the country.

Sir A. GEDDES: I have already told the House twice what I intend to do on this matter. I referred to the question on the Patents and Designs Bill, and I mentioned it about a quarter of an hour ago.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. NEAL: I am sorry that by my absence I missed the right hon. Gentleman's statement. If what he says is true, what is the value of putting in this Clause? If we are to have a fuller measure dealing with this subject later on, I suggest that there is no object to be served by inserting in the Bill this bit of a new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

PREAMBLE.

Whereas it appears that the prices of articles are, to the detriment of the people, being enhanced in some cases by the charging of prices yielding an unreasonable profit to the persons engaged in the production, handling, or distribution thereof:

Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment—In the Preamble, after- the word "of" ["Whereas it appears that the prices of articles"], to insert the words "land, minerals, and"—of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the profiteering which is in the title of this Bill applies only to articles on sale in shops and not to land, minerals, and monopolies?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. If the hon. Member will read the Bill and gather the general purpose of it he will see that it does not apply. The Amendment—In the Preamble, after the word "profit," to
insert the words "or wage"—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill) is unnecessary. The next Amendment—In the Preamble, after the word "the"["engaged in the production"], to insert the word "sale"—is also unnecessary. The sale is included in the distribution.

CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of the Board of Trade to Investigate Complaints and Take Proceedings.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article to which this Act applies—

(a) to investigate prices, costs, and profit at all stages, and for that purpose by Order to require any person to appear before them, and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may re quire ; and on any such investigation they may by Order fix maximum prices; and
(b) to-receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been since the passing of this Act made or sought on the site of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by Order, after hear the parties,—

(i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and
(ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price.

(2) If, as a result of any investigation under taken on their own initiative or on complaint made to them, it appears to the Board of Trade that the circumstances so require, the Board shall take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or sought about which the complaint was made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or sought was such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circum stances, unreasonable, the seller shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine Provided that a rate of profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, shall not be deemed unreasonable.

(3)If any person fails to comply with or in fringes an Order of the Board of Trade under this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(4) If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or makes any representation which is recklessly or to his know ledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(5) Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence,
unless he proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consult.

(6) In any proceedings under this Section to which the Board is a party costs may be awarded to or against the Board.

(7) This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Older of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the Order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the public, or being material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof, but this Act does not apply to any articles which are from time to time declared to be controlled articles, and different provisions of this Act may be applied to different articles.

(8) The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person appearing before them under this Act to give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer an oath for the purpose.

(9) In this Act the expressions "sale" and "seller" include respectively any offer for sale and any person offering to sell.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment—in Sub-section (1), after the word "article"["power in respect of any article"], to insert the words "land or rent"—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and another Amendment raising the question of fixed maximum prices, were very fully discussed yesterday, and I do not propose to call upon them to-day.

Amendment made:

In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the words "hearing the parties," and insert instead thereof the words "giving the parties an opportunity of being heard."— [Sir A. Geddes.]

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "either dismiss the complaint or."
Apparently, as the Clause now stands the Board of Trade, after hearing the complaint, can only do one of two things. They can only either declare a price which would yield a reasonable profit, or require the seller to repay the excess. It is quite clear that they ought to be able also to dismiss the complaint and make an end of it, in which case the costs would be paid by the complainant

Sir A. GEDDES: I am willing to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2)
to add the words "Nothing in this Section shall apply to any article for export from the United Kingdom."
I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I am sure that nothing in this Bill is intended to apply to articles for export, and in view of our well-known policy and our need, I am sure that the House will agree that we should do nothing to hamper our exports in any way.

Sir A. GEDDES: We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment, but is this the best place for it? Nothing in the Bill is intended to apply to exports, but should not the Amendment come at the end of the Bill and cover the whole of its provisions. or at the end of Clause 1?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it came at the end of the Bill it would have to be a new Clause, and we have passed that stage. It might come at the end of Clause 1. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will move it later on when we come to the end of Clause 1.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, with your permission.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "except in the case of an order requiring the repayment of any amount in which case the amount shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt."
This is an Amendment which in the course of the Committee stage we undertook to consider and to move in response to a point that was raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil).

Lord R. CECIL: Does this sweep out the penalty or add the other? I thought that we agreed last night to add the other and to keep the penalty alive. I should have thought that it was injudicious to do away with it. You might want the penalty as well.

Sir A. GEDDES: The actual words sweep out the penalty. I understood that was suggested and that we undertook to do it. I may, however, be wrong.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The penalty might be very useful, and most Members who were here understood that this would be an addition to the penalty which might be imposed.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): My recollection agrees with that of the Noble Lord and not with that of my right hon. Friend. I think these words go too far and require some slight modification. I suggest that the Amendment should be made to read "and in case of an order requiring repayment of any amount, that amount may be recoverable summarily as a civil debt."

Mr. SPEAKER: I will put the Amendment in that form.

Question proposed, "At the end of Sub-section (3) add the words ' and in case of art order requiring repayment of any amount that amount may be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.'"

Mr. NEAL: It would make it a little clearer if, after the word "recoverable," the words "by the aggrieved person" were inserted. The order of repayment is the order of the Board of Trade, yet I respectfully suggest that it is the person overcharged who ought to have the right of bringing the action.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a right one, and that we want to give the man to whom the money is payable the right to take proceedings to recover it. Subject to that, the Amendment is a good one. I do not understand what is the meaning of the words "recoverable summarily as a civil debt." That is a new phrase to me. I quite understand a summary prosecution, font I do not understand the use of the word "summarily" in this connection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JAMESON: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he prove that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent." and to insert instead thereof the words
the chairman and the managing director of the company shall be guilty of the offence charged unless they can show that the offence was committed without their know 'edge and consent, and any director, officer or servant of the company, on whose authority it is proved that the offence took place, shall be guilty of the like offence.
Under the Clause as it stands, if the company is convicted of profiteering it follows that every director and every officer of the company is also convicted and possibly subjected to a fine and passed into
gaol. The assumption underlying that is this, that once you have convicted a company of an offence it follows that every director and every official of that company is also guilty. Surely the House will see-that that does not follow at all.
Let me take a concrete instance. Suppose I go into Selfridge's shop, or the shop of some other big company, and buy a pair of socks. Like a patriotic Scotsman, having come to the conclusion that I am charged a shilling too much, I drag the company before the tribunal, and possibly before the Court, for profiteering. It is convicted. Is it to be said that every director of that company and every official of that company is also guilty ipso facto because the conviction has been obtained against the company, and are the Noble Lords and others who hold the positions of directors to be dragged away and incarcerated? That is quite un-British. It alters the whole assumption of the law of this country that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. In my opinion the furthest you can go, if you do convict a company, is to presume that the chairman and the managing director are guilty, because they ought to know everything that is going on. Even that is a large assumption, but it is one which we are perhaps entitled to make, and I therefore suggest that in my proposed Amendment to the Clause that shall be the extent of the assumption, and that, on the other hand, the onus of proof in the case of a director or official shall lie with the prosecution, and that those persons shall be held to be innocent until they are proved to be guilty. It was pointed out last night that the term "every officer of the company" would include the secretary and the auditor. Further than that, a director of the company might be abroad at the time, and yet when he comes home he may find himself suddenly confronted by an officer of the Court, who informs him that he has been convicted of profiteering over a pair of socks, and is liable either to pay a fine or go to gaol. That is a possible result, and I submit we are entitled in this connection to contemplate all possible results. I suggest that the Clause as altered by my Amendment sufficiently meets the case. It very properly puts the onus of proof of innocence on the chairman or the managing director, but in the case of the ordinary director and ordinary officer of the company, that onus is placed on the prosecution, who must bring home guilt to these people, and in the case of
servants of the company it must also be proved on whose authority they acted, as it might quite well be that the director or chairman of the company might know nothing about the price charged for the socks, and the man who was really the author of the profiteering might be the manager of the department. If that is brought home to the company's servant, then I say he ought to be held guilty. I do not think I need press this matter any further. We thrashed it out last night very thoroughly, and the Attorney-General invited us to make suggestions on this point, promising that he also would try and find a form of words which would cover the idea of the Amendment. I suggest that my proposal really meets the justice of the case.

Sir A. GEDDES: As a result of what took place in Committee last night, we also have been putting our heads together to see how we can improve this Clause. I am not sure that the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend does not practically cover the same ground as the Amendment which we intend to propose. I should like to take his second point first. Of course, I have not had an opportunity as yet of studying his Amendment. He proposes at the end of the Clause to change the terminal words from "without his knowledge and consent" into "without his knowledge or without his consent," which is a rather important point. Then, also in the earlier part, he makes the Clause read that "every director and every officer concerned in the management of the company." I am not sure, although I am very willing to consider the Clause as amended by the hon. Member, if it can be shown that it covers the point; but it does seem to me that the words which we are prepared to move at the appropriate moment wilt really meet the point, to some extent at any rate, which I undertook to cover last night. The Government proposal is to leave out the word "officer" and insert "every officer concerned in the management." and at the end of the Sub-section to leave out the words "and consent," and insert instead thereof the words "or without his consent," so that the Sub-section will read, "Every director and every officer concerned in the management of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and without his consent."

Mr. KILEY: Would it not be sufficient to use the term "manager or managing director." Would not that cover the point?

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not want to renew the discussion of last night, but I do earnestly appeal to the Government to try and meet us on this point. The precedent which they arc establishing is really most serious. It shocks me in every fibre of my constitutional and legal feeling that you should be laying it down, even for a temporary purpose, that a whole class of people who certainly will know nothing whatever about, it—and the vast mass of the directors of companies will certainly not know anything about these transactions—that you should lay it down that this immense number of people are to be deemed primâ, facie, guilty unless they prove their innocence. That really is a most shocking proposition. While I fully admit the excellence of the intentions of my right hon. Friend, I venture to assert that if a Bolshevik Government were in power in this country all it would have to do would be to take this' Bill and make it permanent, and it would then be able to carry out almost everything the Bolsheviks are doing in Russia at the present moment, apart, of course, from actual personal violence, torture, and execution. Really, in order to meet a perfectly justifiable outcry, it is a reckless thing for the Government to establish a precedent of this kind; it is worse than any of those they have established during the War. You are to assume actually that unless persons prove their innocence they are guilty. That is what they are doing in Russia- There, if a man has a clean collar, it is at once taken to be primâ facie evidence that he is a counter-revolutionist, and he is promptly arrested and called upon to prove that he is not. That is what you are going to do here. You are going to say wherever you find a director of a company which has been guilty of profiteering that that director primâ facie must know all about it, and therefore is guilty too. You ought not to play fast and loose with an element of British justice even for the sake of passing a popular Profiteering Bill.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Surely this is only doing what is done under the Companies Act. Are you going to say that the director of a company guilty of profiteering who himself gets the benefit of that profiteering shall escape? [An HON.
MEMBER: "He does not; it is the shareholders who get the benefit!"] Invariably the director is a shareholder also. I never heard of any company in which the directors held no shares. I think it would be grossly improper. My Noble Friend has probably seen the articles of companies, and I would ask him has he ever seen a case in which the directors are not holders of shares?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I. am a director of two companies in which 1 have no personal interest, but I am qualified to act by-virtue of shares which are held in trust for the purpose of enabling me to give my services to the company.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I can only say it is rather an unfortunate position to put a director in. He is responsible to the shareholders for the proper conduct of the company, and he should have sufficient confidence in the company to hold shares in it. As a matter of fact he usually does, and I venture to say I was perfectly correct in saying that if a company makes a large profit the directors share those profits with the shareholders. And yet my Noble Friend suggests that this director is to take the benefit of the profiteering in the form of increased dividends and yet not be responsible for the offence which has been committed, unless it is possible to bring home to him definitely that he personally knew what was being done. That is a perfectly impossible position. If my Noble Friend will read the Companies Acts he will find that the companies had laid upon them an obligation to do a whole number of things. It is no good laying an obligation upon a soulless corporation or upon a thing which only exists as a legal entity. You must enforce that obligation in some way. The Companies Acts almost invariably say that if a company does not carry out the obligations imposed upon it by Statute the directors are liable.

Lord R. CECIL: Can my hon. and learned Friend give a single instance in which the Statute requires that you should send a director to prison unless you prove that he has guilty knowledge? Is there any such case in the whole extent of British law?

Sir J. BUTCHER: I did not come here prepared with my legal books, but I can say that when a company docs something through its agents which is in violation of the law, primâ facie those agents are
always made responsible. That is quite a, sound principle. That is the principle embodied in this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, it says that the agents, namely, the directors, shall be responsible, unless they can prove they had nothing to do with it. In other words, primâ fade it is an obligation put upon them to show that for some reason they had nothing to do with it, therefore they are not responsible. In that event the Bill says they are not to be subject to any penalty. It may be only a question of enforcing payment of money which has been improperly earned by the company. I see nothing but justice in saying that if a company, a legal entity, does something, you should ask, "Who does it?" It is the agents. Prima facie the directors.

Mr. REMER: The managing director.

Sir J. BUTCHER: With great respect, no. The directors are responsible, primâfacie, as agents for the, company. If they choose to delegate their powers to the managing director and say, "We know nothing about it," they are incurring a very great risk. Surely my hon. Friends opposite must have known in their large experience of cases where companies have done certain fraudulent acts—I do not mean they know them personally, but in the course of their legal experience— through their agents, and it would be difficult for the directors to say they are not responsible unless they can prove somehow or other that those acts were done behind their backs or without their knowledge.

Lord R. CECIL: Surely even at the Chancery Bar they must have heard of the doctrine that a criminal prosecution cannot succeed unless you can prove guilty knowledge. A civil liability is a totally different matter. My hon. and learned Friend's experience relates entirely to the question of civil liability under the Companies Acts. What he says is perfectly true: the agent is liable. When it comes to putting a man in prison, the English law has laid it down broadly, with few exceptions, if there are any, that you are not to put a man in prison unless he has been personally guilty. That is the principle, and that is the meaning of the phrase which I thought would be known even at the Chancery Bar, that every man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Apparently there are some things which even the great authorities on common law are ignorant of, and amongst others they are ignorant of the provisions of the Companies Acts. There are pains and penalties put upon directors under the Companies Acts which they can only get out of by proving that they did not commit the offence. The question here is, Who committed the offence? My answer is, The agents of the company. Then the question is, What is the appropriate penalty? It may be a fine or it may be imprisonment. The directors can get out of it by saying, "We know nothing about it, therefore we have not the guilty knowledge," of which the Noble Lord speaks. Primâ facie they are responsible if an offence has been committed, and, as agents they are responsible for it. This Clause is quite reasonable. It says primâ facie you are responsible, but you can get out of that responsibility by showing that you knew nothing about it.

Mr. BRITTON: As a humble Member of this House, I have given the Government my hearty support right through this Bill, but I shall have to part company with them if, as seems probable, the President of the Board of Trade is favourably disposed to the insertion of this Amendment. If that be so, I shall be compelled, reluctantly, to vote against it. I am a director of one or two companies, but I would resign to-morrow if I thought 1 was going to be held responsible and looked upon as being guilty until I proved my innocence of some little trivial action done by people over whom I could have no direct control. The Government seem to be swinging from one. extreme to the other. Some of us, when we came here last Monday, thought the Bill was very inadequate and incomplete, and that it only touched the fringe of this great burning question of profiteering. Until the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food had given an exposition of the Bill, those were our fears and suspicions. I am satisfied now that the Bill, as it.stands, is far-reaching and comprehensive, that it ropes in all the interests and that it deals with profiteering, right from the raw material to the manufactured article on to distribution. I hope the Government will be satisfied with the powers which have been agreed to by the House without adding such an Amendment as is suggested, which in my humble Judgment is unjust and un-English. I trust that the
effect of the Bill will reach one step beyond anything that has been suggested during the discussion.

Sir H. COWAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in referring to the Bill as a whole in speaking on this Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Hon. Members generally extend a little courtesy to a maiden speech.

Sir H. COWAN: I beg to apologise, I did not know that.

Mr. BRITTON: I very much appreciate this renewed evidence of the indulgence of this House. I do not know where I am out of order, because I want to see this Bill accomplish the purpose the Government have in view. I want them to apply it to the Government Departments. I hope they will see that the Government releases some of the vast stocks of timber, wool, and leather, on terms that cannot come within the provisions of the Bill; in other words, on. terms of reasonable and fair profit. The manufacturers and producers of this country are waiting and longing for bigger stocks of raw materials. I know producing concerns where the men are afraid to give full output because they are afraid they will work themselves out of work. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he might be able to use some of his powers under this Bill to deal with Government property. Nobody wants the Government to part with its stocks without a fair and just profit. I hope that they will deal with the Government itself. My principle reason for craving the indulgence of the House is that the boot trade has come very prominently into this matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the more convenient occasion for the hon. Member would be the Third Reading, when he would be entitled to review the Bill. he are dealing now only with the responsibility of directors, and whether all the directors or only the managing directors should be held responsible for offences.

Mr. BRITTON: I sincerely apologise. 1 hope I may have an opportunity later of saying something upon the point.

Sir G. HEWART: As was said yesterday, we have made an endeavour and a serious endeavour to meet what was obviously the sense of the House in this matter. I cannot help flunking that there
is a great deal of exaggeration upon this point. It is perfectly idle to suggest that the position of this Bill is at all analogous to the position of the person in Russia or elsewhere who is able to condemn somebody he meets in the street because he is wearing a particular kind of collar. Illustrations of that kind are obviously the merest rhetorical exaggeration. The problem with which this Clause is concerned is that of fixing responsibility in the case of that artificial person, recognised by the law, and called a company. In practice it is very difficult to bring home to the individual director knowledge of the particular transaction in which the company may be engaged. Therefore it is felt in all quarters of the House that where the offence has been committed by the company and where a conviction has followed, the guilt ought to be deemed to be brought home, in the absence of sufficient explanation to the contrary, not only to that artificial entity, the company itself, but also to some living persons who are concerned in the management of the company. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend manifestly fails to accomplish the purpose for which it is drafted, because, as it stands, neither of the two persons specificially mentioned in the earlier part could succeed unless both of them proved something or other. That is clearly not what is meant. I am very anxious to meet the reasonable desires of the Committee and I would go a step further than has been already suggested, and I should be prepared to move to substitute for the words in the Bill the words, "The chairman and every managing director and every officer concerned in the management." It is not that all these persons are to be guilty of the offence, but that there is to be a presumption of their guilt, which may be rebutted by proof on their part that the offence took place without their knowledge or consent. If the words are limited in that way I think the criticisms which have been made will be met.

Mr. JAMESON: I think that suggestion meets the point. It really fixes the responsibility upon the people who are primâ fame responsible, and accordingly, although it does not go quite the length 1 should like, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, to leave out the words "every director and
officer" and to insert instead thereof the words, "The chairman and every managing director and every officer concerned in the management."

Mr. KILEY: We are indebted to the Attorney-General for the consideration he has given to this and for his effort to meet the desire of many hon. Members who have spoken. The suggestion, however, does not completely meet our views. I am chairman of a company and I spend a good part of my time in the establishment. Whilst I am absent, there is a managing director who is carrying on the business. He has under his control a number of departmental managers who fix prices for their goods. They are expected to make a gross profit on the total turnover, on some articles 8 per cent, and on others of a perishable nature, more. It is not possible for me to be cognisant of every variation of price that goes on in every department of the stores. If the Attorney-General would alter the wording and make It "Chairman or managing director." that would give him all he. wants. He wants to get someone in a responsible position. I do not think he wants all the staff. He wants the manager of the department concerned, but he does not want every manager. If one manager out of twenty commits an offence, you do not want the other nineteen who have nothing to do with the department which is affected. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should alter the wording, and restrict his efforts to the chairman and the managing director.

Lord H. CECIL: I cannot help feeling that this Sub-section is open to this very important criticism—that either it will be so administered that it will not produce any particular effect, or it may be an instrument of prodigious injustice. It is actually proposed that the managing director, the chairman, and any officer concerned in the management are to be convicted, unless they can prove that they have no knowledge of the offence, and the offence is to be the exceedingly vague offence that it is whatever a Court of Summary Jurisdiction thinks unreasonable. So that we are actually going to propose that a person may be sent to prison because he cannot prove that he did not know that someone in his employment was going to charge a price which, ex post facto, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction finds to be an unreasonable price. If such a proposal is to be taken seriously, if it is
not to be thought a rather tedious addition to Alice in Wonderland, it would undoubtedly be a most iniquitous and oppressive proposal. If this were to be part of the permanent law of the land, no one would ever become a managing director. Some evasion probably would gradually grow up, and there would be a young man of no particular character, who did not mind going to prison, who would nominally hold the post of managing director, and when a prosecution took place he would go to prison. The history of oppression is full of episodes of that kind. These presumptions of guilt are an old story. I remember in mediaeval times the question was asked, "Can an archdeacon be saved?" the presumption being that he could not be saved. The Bill will only last for six months, and probably will produce no effect whatever, and if that were all it would not be worth while protesting, but it is important as setting such a dangerous precedent. Any Government, in a moment of panic or in a state of public excitement, can propound a vague offence., like charging a price which someone or other is going to think unreasonable—you could not have a vaguer offence than that —and then proposes to send people to prison—or why not put them to death, as the injustice is exactly the same in essence, though not in degree—because they could not prove that they had not knowledge that someone in their employment had committed an offence of the very vaguest character. That is a very dangerous precedent to set, and it is an illustration of what a bad plan it is to bring in legislation in a hurry and sit all night considering the details of it. The Attorney-General just now spoke of the sense of the Committee. Can a Committee be said to have any sense if it sits up all night?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is contrary to the Rules of Order to speak disrespectfully of the Committee of the House.

Lord H. CECIL: I am aware that, except, in a spirit of mockery, such an ex-pression should not be used. It certainly is an additionally dangerous precedent it you are going to do these very drastic things in criminal law without the ordinary safeguards. The Bill has still some stages to pass in another place, and I earnestly hope the Government will reconsider the precedent they are setting in
this Clause, and will see that the ordinary safeguards of the liberty of the subject are put into it.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I should not have said a word but for the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher). He said he could not conceive that any director of any company would not have full knowledge, and would not accept full responsibility for the whole of the actions of the company. There are many cases in which directors have no financial interest in the company, but have been invited to join the board because the company was in great difficulty, and they gave their services in order to get it out of the difficulty, and had no further concern with the results of the trading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That controversy was on the Amendment which is now withdrawn. We must really keep ourselves now to the new words which are suggested, confining the liability to the chairman, managing director, and every officer concerned in the management. It is a more limited question now than it was before.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BALFOUR: In certain cases, managing directors have been appointed to assume very great responsibilities in companies with which I have no association in business, such as soft goods and grocery stores. Quite recently a very large stores in London invited very responsible gentlemen to accept seats on the board, and in one case, I think, to accept the chairmanship and the managing directorship of the company, in order to rescue it from a serious financial position. There are many hundreds of companies with directors on the board, men of the highest standing and repute, who have been asked to join the board in varying capacities, as chairman, managing director, or otherwise, in order to save the companies and enable them to conduct their business on proper lines. It is proposed under this Clause that the prices of articles are fixed with the full knowledge of the chairman or managing director, and he is to be liable to go to gaol or to suffer the imposition of a very heavy fine unless he is able to go into Court and prove that he is innocent. It is an entire perversion of every elementary rule of British justice which has obtained in this country up to the present. I beg the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consider that point of view. I certainly would not waste one moment in speaking
on this matter if I thought it was a mere trivial incident in the Bill, if I thought it was something which would not be pointed to in after years, when this six months has elapsed, as a precedent established, not. by a party Government, but by the considered judgment of a Coalition House of Commons. This will be thrown up to us in. after years constantly, and I beg and implore the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consider that point If he would only slightly modify the Amendment and put in every person directly responsible for fixing the price of the goods, it would cover the whole thing. It would get the chairman, if he is responsible, it would get the managing director, it would get the officer, it would get the servant, it would get the man you want. It would make the net wide enough to get everybody without putting an unfair penalty upon anybody.

Mr. JAMESON: I withdrew my Amendment, and the question before the House is whether the Attorney-General's Amendment should take the place of the words in the Bill at present. So far as the people for whom I am speaking are concerned, I very much prefer the Amendment of the Attorney-General to the words that stand in the Bill, and I hope hon. Members will not oppose the Attorney-General's Amendment.

Sir A. S. BENN: This Amendment settles the point which worried many of us last night.

Mr. M'LAREN: I had no intention of taking part in the discussion, but certain things have been said which make it incumbent upon me to speak. The new Amendment gives power to the Government to penalise a director unless he can prove that he is not guilty. In connection with the law, the common criminal is held to be innocent until the Government or the authorities prove him guilty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that Standing Order 19 prevents an hon. Member repeating speeches already delivered.

Mr. M'LAREN: It is no new precedent that this is to put into operation in the law. In connection with the Mines Act of 1911, a managing director or a manager or chairman of a company can be taken up, and have been taken up, for an offence against the Mines Act of 1911, and they
had to prove that they were innocent before they were let off. I have always thought that it is a great mistake that a man should be called up and that he should have to prove his innocence before he is let off. It is incumbent upon the Government to prove the opposite. While I recognise that a good deal has been done to meet the wishes of the House, I think the Government might go a little further and eliminate that portion of the Amendment.

Mr. J. DENNIS: I should like to support what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Kiley). I do so feelingly, because I am chairman of at least two companies in which I am in no way pecuniarily interested so far as the trading results of those companies are concerned. I do not receive one penny by the way of fees or emoluments. My position appears to be this, that if any official of either of those companies brings himself within the terms of this Bill and commits an offence which is not defined, and in regard to which I should have no guide, I might find myself hailed before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and only then for the first time be able to place before the Court any excuse which I might offer, and I presume that excuse would have to be given from the (Jock. Therefore, T speak feelingly upon this matter, and I hope the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade will see their way clear to fall in with the views of my hon. Friend (Mr. Kiley) and fix the responsibility for the offence upon such officer, be he chairman, managing director, or other official, upon whom the responsibility rests.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "and consent," and insert instead thereof the words "or without his consent."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. GRIFFITHS— leave out Sub-section (7).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: My object in putting down this Amendment is to get information, and before I move it I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether bricks, cement and timber are within the scope of this Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Then I do not move the Amendment.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "articles"["any articles"], to insert the words "sold at public auction or by competitive tender or."
I imagine that the Government do not intend that this should apply to articles sold by auction or by competitive tender, because the conditions of sale by auction or by tender are totally different from the conditions of sale which can be considered in this Bill. When an article is sold at public auction it is not the seller but the buyer who fixes the price, by his own bid. Consequently, when the buyer has himself fixed the price which he is willing to pay it would be absurd to suggest that he should then lodge a complaint that the price was unreasonably high. The same thing, although somewhat differently, applies to articles sold by competitive tender. It is true in that case that the tenderer does name a price but it is the prospective buyer, the man who invited the tender, who names the conditions, and the conditions are very frequently onerous and almost invariably include penalties. When the tender has been sent in the prospective purchaser is nearly always protected by a clause that he is not bound to accept the lowest tender. Therefore, he can voluntarily, and he does so in a great many cases, accept a price which is higher than the price at which he could have bought elsewhere. For his own reasons he voluntarily elects to pay that higher price. In that case it would be ridiculous for him, when he had accepted the tender at a higher price than other prices submitted to him, to turn round and say, "This is above the market price, the price is unreasonable." I hope the Government will see that it is only reasonable that some such words as these are inserted, to make the meaning quite clear.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. GEDDES: I will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, in Subsection (7), after the word "articles"["controlled articles"], to insert the words "nor to the sale of any article for export from the United Kingdom."
I hope this will meet with the approval of the House, and I understand the Government will accept it. We want to prevent' the people of this country paying
unduly high prices, but we are prepared to sell our goods abroad for the best price we can get. The rule of the nation, of course, is that the buyer imports as cheaply as possible, but we sell our exports as well as possible. It is in order to protect anyone who is exporting from having to reduce their prices under this Act, that 1 move this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. GEDDES: If the hon. Member will move this as a new Sub-section (10) in these words, "Nothing in this Act shall apply to the sale of any article for export from the United Kingdom," I will accept it.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, to insert as a new Sub-section,
(10). Nothing in this Act shall apply to the sale of any article for export from the United Kingdom.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes) I moved this Amendment earlier, and it was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that it should come as a declaratory proviso at the end of the Bill.

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member was mistaken. It was to come at the end of Clause 1.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The words have been slightly altered. It says, "Nothing in this Act." Does that mean that we cannot investigate the proceedings of companies that go in for export? Goods are exported to some other country and then are brought back again in order to evade some Regulation of the Board of Trade with regard to fixing prices, or they might be sent abroad for some finishing touches; and these words "Nothing in this Act" seem to me to leave that loophole, but perhaps an explanation might clear that matter up.

Sir A. GEDDES: The words are, "The sale of any article for export."

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
The Board of Trade may, when they think the circumstances of the case so require, take
proceedings against any person making a involous or malicious complaint before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the complaint made was frivolous or malicious he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
I had in mind the case of a trade rival who deliberately brings a charge against Another tradesman in the town in order to discredit him in the district, and if this can be proved it should be possible to make it an offence punishable. Tradesmen will require protection from purely malicious proceedings. Several speakers of great experience in commerce, speaking early this morning, referred to the case of the refusal of credit through the complaint of some unprincipled person, and in the case where there is a complaint against a respectable, honest business man there should be a deterrent.

Major HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: This Amendment exhibits a somewhat unusual degree of misconception of the provisions of the Bill. The Amendment is that the Board of Trade may take proceedings against a person who makes a frivolous or a malicious complaint before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. But the persons to take proceedings against a Court of Summary Jurisdiction are the Board of Trade themselves or a committee to which they delegate their powers. Therefore it is asked that the Board of Trade, having commenced proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, should afterwards commence proceedings against themselves. If that is not what the Amendment means, and if the person to be hit by the Amendment is not the person who is responsible for the proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but the person who makes some complaint of a malicious and false description, that is dealt with by Sub-clause 4 of Clause 1, which provides:
If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or makes any representation which is recklessly or to his knowledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had not seen the newly-drafted Sub-clause. I think that the Attorney-General will agree that the Bill has been altered a great
deal since it was first introduced and that this Amendment was an original Amendment to the Bill in its first form, but after the explanation which has been given I shall be glad to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Establish Local Committees, etc.)

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Board may make Regulations and give directions as to the constitution, powers, and procedure of committees established under this Section, and the districts for which they shall act, which Regulations and directions shall have effect as though enacted in this Act:

Provided also that any such Regulation shall not be deemed to be a statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "Provided also that any such regulation shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893."
These words were inserted in the Committee last night. Following the insertion of the proviso requiring the regulations to be published, we were advised by the draftsman on duty at the moment that those words were required in the Bill. It appeared after fuller consideration that this was covered by the permanent provision dealing with the Board of Trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is a manuscript Amendment to Clause 6.

SIR G. YOUNGER: Before this Amendment is moved may I ask whether Clause 3 as it stands is not really a repetition of the Municipal Authorities Enabling Bill which was rejected in this House on Second Beading, enabling authorities by order of the Board of Trade to establish businesses and does the Clause not put into this Bill what was actually refused a Second Reading by this House at the beginning of the Session?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is sometimes found that second thoughts are best. It is open to the House to revise its decision provided that it is not asked to agree to or disagree with identically the same question. That is not the case here.

CLAUSE 6.—(Expenses.)

(1) The expenses of any local committees required to be established by local authorities under this Act shall be defrayed by the local
1719
authorities out of such find or rate, and in such manner, as may be directed by the Board of Trade; and any expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act to an amount not exceeding seventy-five thousand pounds, shall, subject to the approval of the Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(2)Such expenses may in either case include such payment to the chairmen and members of committees and tribunals, in respect of their travelling expenses and loss of time, as appears to the Board reasonable and is approved by the Treasury.
(3)Any fines imposed at the instance of a local committee under this Act shall be applied in aid of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the committee are required to be paid under this Act, and any other fines imposed under this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "required to be."
This Amendment is merely to clear up some debris. In the course of the Amendment of the Bill this morning we made certain Amendments with regard to the appointment of tribunals, and the words "required to be" are now redundant.

Mr. G. THORNE: Should not an Amendment of mine come first?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member would not be in order because it relieves the local authorities from defraying expenses, which would mean that the expenses must fall upon the national Exchequer. We cannot make that alteration on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "committee"["local committee"], insert the words "established by a local authority."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill) to substitute "exorbitant prices" for "profiteering" is not in order.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be bow read the third time."

Mr. HOLMES: I think that the Rouse will generally agree that private Members have done something to improve this Bill during its passage through the House. As the President of the Board of Trade said a few minutes ago, the House has cleared away some of the debris and has put in some good
matter. It was a bad Bill to begin with; it is a bad Bill still, and nothing that the House could do, either in Committee or the Report stage, could make it a good Bill. This is all the result of legislation in a hurry. The Government felt that something must be done. They had delayed and delayed, and they were within a fortnight of the Recess, when Members would be going to their constituencies, and they would meet there people, particularly women, full of resentment against the Government which has obviously been developing all over the country. Something had to be done so that Members of the Coalition party should have something to say when they met their constituents, and so this Bill to check profiteering was introduced. Its terms, when it was introduced, simply constituted a bluff on the public. The only thing that it is really likely to do is to make people afraid—wholesalers, merchants, manufacturers and retailers — that under the provisions of the Bill they may be prosecuted and imprisoned, and in that wav, a sort of negative way, it probably will do some good, but it is hardly to the dignity of the Government or the House that an Act of Parliament should be drawn in such a wav that its real effect is not of a positive kind, but is only of a negative kind, in that it prevents people from doing certain things.
The Select Committee was set up over a fortnight ago by the House. After its first meeting it was torpedoed, or apparently torpedoed, by the President of the Board of Trade. He came before the Committee and told them he was going to bring in this Bill, and he explained the Bill to the Committee. It proved to be different on many points when we saw the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind meanwhile. That was evidence that it was legislation in a panic. He told the Committee it was quite an honest effort and that the Committee would be of no further use. The Committee were appointed, not toy the Government, but by the House, and the Committee have unanimously decided to-day -I am sure the Chairman will not mind my saying this —to disregard this Bill altogether, and simply to act upon their terms of reference from the House, and to go on with that inquiry as if nothing had happened in the meantime.

Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to say a word or two on a point which arose in Committee and which you, Sir, ruled out of
order on the Report stage, when it was raised by the hon. Member for Wolver-hampton (Mr. Thorne). That is the question as to where the expenses of the Ministry under this Act are to come from in the case of a local committee. I wish to point out that, while it is undoubtedly right in my judgment that local committees should be brought into existence, or at any rate it may well be the case that they ought to be brought into existence, it is very undesirable to have what you have in this Bill—local committees which can be appointed by the Board of Trade, in which ease, I presume, their expenses will be defrayed from the taxes, or local committees ordered to be appointed by local authorities, in which case their expenses will be defrayed from the rates or from such local funds as the Board of Trade may decide. That appears to me to be a bad method of legislating. If you are to have local committees for the discharge of national work of this kind, I think the argument is very strong that their expenses should be national expenses and not local, but to have an alternative where the Ministry can appoint a local committee direct, or can order a local authority to appoint, and when in the one alternative the expenses come from one source, and in the other come from another, is to bring into the consideration and the carrying out of this Bill matters which ought not to be brought in, and is to put both the Minister and the locality in this curious position, that the Minister will be tempted to say, "Let the local authorities do this, and if it is not done directly by me or those whom I appoint, any deficiencies in execution will not refer to my department, but will go on to the shoulders of others." If he does that, the local authorities are forced to make a charge on the rates. On the other hand, if he appoints a committee himself, that committee must not have costs falling on the rates at all. I respectfully suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman wants the Act to work smoothly, as he does, he should not order or direct any local authority to appoint committees, or else there will be, undoubtedly, a sense of injustice. Let him appoint the committees himself, after consultation with local authorities if he thinks well. I do not think that enough trouble is always taken in our discussion's to get clear principles laid down and applied between the sources of local expenditure and expenditure for national purposes.
I wish the Bill well. I think it has elements of good in it. Its imperfections are obvious, but I am confident it will do some good. I hope it will do a great deal of good. Much will depend on the way it is carried out, and the responsibility for that will be, and ought to be, with the Government. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend who spoke last that the Committee upstairs are going on with their useful work. I do not believe for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman's interposition was any intentional attack on their self esteem or on the work they are doing. The question of profiteering is far wider than those aspects raised in this Bill, and we cannot afford to praetermit for a week any inquiries which may help to deal with so widespread and great an evil. I hope my right hon. Friend will get his Bill, and that having got it he will make the very best use of it.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I for one opposed this Bill from the beginning. I think I agree very largely with the remark which fell from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) when he described the Bill as a bluff upon the public—that is to say, I consider that this Bill is one which does not really, and will not really, cure the evil which everybody knows to exist, tout that on the contrary it will induce a tremendous amount of friction and bad temper throughout the country, and will utterly fail to produce the result it is intended to produce. Generally speaking I think it is a thoroughly bad Bill. The main fault of it is that it is impossible actually to define what is profiteering. Upon that the working of the whole Bill will hinge. How is one going to prosecute people in very humble circumstances for selling articles at a large increase on the price at which they bought them, when they are people without capital and without resources, who live from hand to mouth and from day to day, while at the same time we find it quite reasonable that a company which has made large profits on very small beginnings should still continue to make those profits? I cannot see how that position can logically be disentangled. Take the case of a man who sells black pills for black people. They cost one farthing a dozen boxes to make, and he sells them for 1s. l½d. a box. That is not supposed to be a criminal offence, yet you are going to prosecute the man
who sells a cabbage for 3d. or 4d. more than he paid for it. Take the case of a woman at the seaside who charges a lodger as much for a bathroom for a month as the whole rent of her house for one year. Is that profiteering? There is no end to the ramifications and the maze of difficulties to which this Bill is going to lead.
I am one of those who do not believe that to make a profit is a crime. I believe that as long as profit is not usury, it is no sort of a crime, and the difficulty of discovering when it is usury will make this Bill quite useless. We are suffering now from exactly the same things that happened after the Napoleonic wars—high prices. I have looked up in Mulhall the facts as to what happened 100 years ago. Taking the basic figure as 100, he shows that agricultural products rose after the conclusion of peace to 170, manufactures to 135, and the general level of prices was 52 per cent. more after Waterloo than it had been twenty years before. Twenty years later those figures had dropped again in the case of agriculture to the basic figure of one hundred, manufactures to sixty-nine, and the general fall in the level of prices to eighty-eight, or 12 per cent. loss than twenty years before the war. History is only repeating itself. We are going through the same cycle of high prices. As soon as our trade is reestablished and this inflation of paper money is corrected, as 3oon as our ships are built to carry our material and trade is booming, all this agitation about profiteering and high prices will subside, because the people will be getting high wages and everybody will be trying to make a profit for himself.
I think that this Bill is only one which has been brought in to make the people believe that the Government are really going to correct the evil of high prices. They are attempting an impossibility, and when the people find that they have been fooled the Government will find that the wrath of the people will descend upon them. We all know the quotation about fooling the people all the time, and so on. As regards the English people we might add that it is a very dangerous thing to fool them at any time. I consider this Bill is a deceptive Bill and that it will very soon be shown to be deceptive. As regards municipal trading, under this Bill it is
made legal, and yet in his opening speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the State must not be allowed to go in for State trading. That is purely communism in my opinion, and as I was sent here by my constituents to oppose Communism and Bolshevism I have the strongest reason for voting against this Bill-High prices can, I believe, be cured by the simple method which me right hon. Gentleman and the Government have rejected, by once more stiffening up the food control and the control of other necessaries until we get back to a more normal position. That has been the policy which has been adopted in the past. Diocletian, about A.D. 300, issued a fixed price list for the whole of the Roman Empire. Again, I will give one or two quotations from Mulhall. Diocletian fixed the price of boots at 8s. 4d. per pair, baef 4d. per lb., mutton 4d. per lb., twenty eggs 1s. 3d., butter 9d. per lb. If we went along those lines a bit more I am certain that we should immensely improve the position, and if such action were taken by the Government it would do away with the necessity of bringing in this Bill, which will produce deception, mistrust, and espionage amongst people. Everybody will accuse everybody else of profiteering, and it gives to the Bolshevik and the anarchist the finest cue that could possibly be imagined. The idea that what is going to be criminal in this country is to be a virtue when dealing with foreigners is also repugnant to me. It seems to me that if it is a criminal offence which you are going to punish by imprisonment and fine in this country to sell at high prices, then it is equally a criminal offence to sell at. high prices, perhaps to our Allied friends across the water. I have never been able to understand the words which are used in the Old Testament, "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury," but "unto thy brother thou may not lend upon usury." We are interfering with the course of trade far too much in this country. We are trying to follow the example of the United States, in New York State, where they have got a thousand of the most wonderful laws, framed in much better verbiage than ours. But there are such a lot of laws there that the vast majority of them are not paid any attention to by the people, of that State. The penalties in this Bill of fine or imprisonment or both may have been taken from a New York law. You cannot get into
a tramcar in New York without being informed that you are liable to a fine of 500 dollars or two years' imprisonment for the vulgar habit of expectoration. People there evidently think if they are going to be fined they will have their money's worth. We are following the example of the United States in having laws on every conceivable subject, but I think we are adopting a very bad policy in bringing forward a Bill like this on Report after it was rushed through in the most terrible circumstances and without any proper examination. The Bill, I believe, is purely and solely for the purpose of deceiving the public into thinking that we can reduce prices in this way.

Mr. WIGNALL: The historical lecture to which the hon. and gallant Member has treated us as to what happened a hundred years ago back to the days of the Roman Empire may be all true and correct, because human greed existed then as it does to-day, but a good many things have happened in the hundred years, and yet one thing remains the same, and that is the human greed for making exorbitant profits. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not object to making profits. I do not object to the hon. and gallant Gentleman making profits as long as he is not taking profits out of the poverty and sufferings of the people of the country, and provided it does not mean destitution and hunger.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I say I am making no profits?

Mr. WIGNALL: You said you had no objection to the making of profits. My protest is against the way in which the profit is made. We have heard many criticisms of this Bill, but everybody seemed to agree that the evil of profiteering existed, and it is to remedy that evil that the Bill is brought forward, undoubtedly in a mighty hurry. I think that this Bill will go a long way to deal with it. We will not be able to judge this Bill by the number of convictions which will result from it. You might as well say that you could only value the police force by the number of convictions that they obtain. You might as well examine the annual records of the chief constables and sum them up by saying that there were only so many convictions and fines. I judge the value of the police force by the amount of crime they prevent, and that is their value to the country. The hon. and
gallant Gentleman said that this Bill was going to create dissension and Bolshevism. That is about the last thing I have heard as one of the evils of this Bill. I know it will create unrest in the country and that there will be a lot of distrust and bad feeling among the people who are prevented carrying on the career that this Bill is intended to stop. Let me give an illustration. This afternoon I have had facts brought to my notice which I regard as a crime and a scandal and a disgrace to this country. In an organisation with which I am concerned we have a large number of fishermen who own their own boats on shares or entirely, and who go out into the sea, collect the fish and bring the cargo to the quay side, where the middle man comes in and has to sell the fish by auction. If there is a glut of fish in the market the middlemen say, "We will not have your fish. Take it away. Do what you like with it." And thus the men cannot sell it in the market. One of these men told me to-day that only a week ago they caught three cargoes of mackerel, one containing 22,000 fish, another 19,000 fish, and another 18,000 fish. Those cargoes were rejected and dumped into the sea and not allowed to be sold as food for the people. Is not that a crime? Do you not think that the fellow responsible for that deserves to be fined £200 or imprisoned for six months, or both? I say that the man, whoever he may be, who by virtue of his position and power, can stand between the people and the food that they need because he cannot make sufficient profit to satisfy him and thereby causes the destruction of the food, is a criminal of the worst kind and the greatest enemy of our country. That is the fellow we are up against.

Mr. REMER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say where that happened?

Mr. WIGNALL: At Newlyn, Cornwall. I am going there next week and will get you some more information. I would advise the Government to go to the coasts of Cornwall and Devon, or any other coasts, and call a conference of the fishermen and explain the facts as they understand them and not as the middlemen understand them, and not as the profiteers know them. One of those fishermen told me this afternoon that they brought in a cargo of mackerel the other day and did not get for it ¾d. per fish, and the men who caught the fish owned the boat and
gave their labour. When those men were up in the town they saw those same mackerel selling at 4d., 5d. and 6d. each. That was a bit of profit, and an unreasonable profit and a scandalous profit for somebody, and that is the evil we want to get at. I do not mean to say that everything that this Bill intends to attempt will be accomplished, but as one who moves and lives amongst the people, and understands the everyday occurrences amongst the people, I think it will do something to prevent the scandal of profiteering that is going on to-day. You will not be able to judge this Bill in six months time by the number of convictions it has brought about, but by the amount of prevention which it will have exercised upon the people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take my tip to-day and get on to this fish business, which is the greatest scandal at the present time. I have only given him a mere trifle of what I have heard this afternoon, but what I did hear made my blood boil and filled my soul with indignation, and I therefore hope that he will get on with this fish business as quickly as possible, and not allow those people to rob the people of food of which there is need.

7 P.M.

Sir F. YOUNG: I am in much sympathy with those hon. Members who throughout the life of thus Bill have roundly condemned it at every opportunity. It may be more or less what we would call a bad Bill as measured by our ordinary conceptions of legislation, but we are dealing with an extraordinarily difficult subject. We are undoubtedly endeavouring to disturb ordinary economic laws, and that cannot be done without a good deal of experimentation. Whilst this Bill may not be-entirely successful, it will at least be a useful experiment for six months, and will, perhaps, lead us on the way to doing something more perfect in regard to what is an admitted evil by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I agree with those hon. Members who appreciate what will be the moral effect of this Bill on the community at large. I believe that the moral effect will be considerable, and we need not, as the last speaker said, measure the exact results of this Bill by the number of prosecutions. Personally, I would expect rather more results if the proceedings under this Bill, in the shape of investigations, were more public than they are to be. I have spoken in Committee on this
point, and whilst I quite recognise that one has to pay a certain amount of regard to trade and the effect upon it, of the disclosure of what is commonly called confidential information, at the same time, weighing the advantages with the disadvantages, I say the advantages lie with publicity. Publicity more than prosecution would have increased the moral effect of the Bill and would also have been of great educational value to the people, because the story of investigation would have appealed to all sections of the community, who would have followed what happened in the course of the investigations, and the information gained would have been of great advantage in teaching them exactly what are the main factors contributing to present day prices. Whilst we all recognise that there is profiteering, I think the great evil is not so much profiteering as it is high prices, because profiteering suggests something ignoble, whereas high prices can exist without the individuals who even profit from it doing anything morally wrong. High prices can arise out of a number of circumstances, which in a measure those who receive them can hardly control. You have an enormous demand at present by the population, mostly individuals enjoying a greater spending power as regards amount of money than they had before, and you have traders able to do a great turnover at a cash trade, and they in their turn, to take advantage of the opportunity of a great turnover, offer extraordinary prices to manufacturers and producers, and if the latter cut down their prices to what we call a fair profit it simply means that they hand the extra profit over to the other persons, and it is not saved to the consumers. So in many cases almost perforce high prices exist without any obliquity on the part of the traders.
If we had provided for greater publicity in connection with the investigations under this Bill we should have done a great deal to educate the people in the direction of economy and of a truer appreciation of the factors contributing to the higher costs to-day. I think we should have brought home to the great mass of the people what an important factor in the high prices the industrial situation of to-day is. Many of us do not cavil at the higher wages and more reasonable hours, but we- must object to those who are getting the advan-
tage of these better conditions not giving at least as good a yield of effort as they did in earlier times, and the sooner we bring home to them the truth that they cannot expect to have reasonable costs of living until they produce much more freely than they are doing to-day, the better it will be. Of course, it is easy to establish a number of fairly legitimate excuses arising out of the circumstances of the moment, but whilst those excuses palliate the evil, the sooner we can bring home to the people the economic results of this under-production and high wages, the sooner we shall do something effective in bringing about more stability in our domestic life. It is for those reasons that I am sorry we have not provided much greater publicity to the investigations under this Bill. It is for those reasons also that I am delighted to know that the Select Committee are going to continue their inquiries, because they can go on side by side with what is done in this Bill, and through that body I am hoping we shall attain a public knowledge of the facts, which will do a great deal to improve the present position of affairs.

Sir J. D. REES: Public opinion, so far as I can understand, calls for this Bill or some Bill of this character. At the same time, I rather regret that I have not heard any definition exactly distinguishing profiting from profiteering. I suppose profiting is Profiting with a big "P," but however that may be, while we all wish to kill profiteering, I hope and believe that everybody is equally anxious to avoid killing profiting. If we are going to kill profits we shall have no business, and it is a very nice question how far one is to go. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) is naturally and justifiably indignant about something he described in the way of the destruction of food, but I am under the impression that what he described has been going on in this country as a matter of course in regard to fish and fruit long before the War was thought of. The cases to which he referred may be extreme cases. I hope and believe they are but something of the same character, I believe, had been an extremely common feature of trading in this country before the War.

Mr. WIGNALL: Not to the same extent.

Sir J. D. REES: Perhaps not, and I hope not. One must not forget the case of the man whose own wages have been quadrupled, but who is furious because a
London omnibus company wanted to put 10 per cent. extra on his fares or a railway company wanted to put an extra penny on his daily journey. There is need for very careful discrimination in this matter, and I never can get out of my head, when these Bills are before the House of Commons, and as one succeeds another, the statement of the most philosophic of historians "The more corrupt the Republic, the more numerous the laws." We must look upon all these laws as necessary evils and support them at present, I suppose, as they evidently appear to be called for by public opinion, upon which I believe this particular Bill will have a soothing and satisfactory effect. I should not have troubled the House with the few platitudes in which I have ventured to indulge—though nothing forbids the multiplication of platitudes, so far as I can gather from my experience in this assembly—except that I do want to express some regret that Sub-clause (5) of Clause 1 did not undergo some more radical alteration than I understand it has actually received. In the Bill as introduced that Sub-clause ran
Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence, unless he proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent.
To-day, I understand, subject to correction, this has been altered, making only the managing director, the chairman, and any officer concerned in managing the company liable, but I conceive that under that Section as amended a chairman at any rate will be in a somewhat uncomfortable position. Take the case of a chairman who tries to do his duty by the company and attends daily. He does not stay the whole day. Being in the building and being in touch with the managing director, I should assume, and I should not feel offended if I was considered myself to be responsible in such a case for an act taken during my presence there, or even during the day I had attended at the office, but in that event, if I should be right in the character I should attribute to the attendance of the chairman and his responsibilities and duties, he would not be exempt under the Section as now amended. Nor am I at all sure that a chairman or an ordinary director is not an officer concerned in managing the company. I think he is, or ought to be. It is well known that individual directors who have particular experience in the business in which the company is concerned take a
very active part, as active a part almost as the nominally managing director. How then would they stand under this Section as amended? I take it they would stand in precisely the same position in which they stood under the Bill as introduced. I suppose, in fact I am quite willing to think, that it is rather late to make alterations, and that those who have accepted the Bill as necessary under the exceptional circumstances of the moment, as I do, must also be willing to accept the particular Clauses which they do not in themselves like. I should be glad if this matter even now could be placed on a more satisfactory footing, but I do not suggest for a moment that in order to do that the passing of the Bill should be delayed, and, subject to the remarks I have made, I propose to vote for it.

Earl WINTERTON: I think the last speaker is under a misapprehension, but in any case the matter would have been more conveniently raised either in Committee or on Report. I do not think it is a Third Heading point at all, and I propose to deal with the.Bill on a far broader basis than he has done. I think this Bill has been passed under very considerable disadvantages. It is a Hill of really fundamental importance, it introduces in many respects an entirery novel principle into our system of legislation, and it has been introduced at a time when, as it happens, there is practically an interregnum in ordinary Cabinet responsibility, and an actual interregnum in the Prime Minister's leadership of the House. It would not be in order to discuss those two matters in detail on the Third Reading of this Bill, but I say that the House of Commons remains at a great disadvantage in discussing a Bill of this important nature when the head of the Government that controls the House of Commons is not able to be in his place and to answer the different points that are put. I am surprised that nobody in this Debate has yet made the point that no one has the slightest idea what the ultimate end of this adventure will be. It is laid down that the Bill is only to be in operation for six months. But surely everyone knows that either the Bill will be extended to more than six months, or else another Bill will be brought in to take its place, the real fact of the matter being that profiteering has become far too useful a phrase both for the genuinely discontented man and the
man who disagrees with everything. The word "profiteering" has become part of our ordinary political vocabulary, and I can assure the Government that, in my opinion, and the opinion of most people who look at the question, we are not going to get rid of profiteering after six months. This puts us at a great disadvantage when we realise that in six months this Bill is automatically coming to an end, and we have had no intimation from the Government as to what policy is going to take its place when it comes to an end. The President of the Board of Trade said the Bill was a life-line to safety.

Sir A. GEDDES: The phrase was used, not in connection with the Bill as a whole, but in connection with some part of the Bill.

Earl WINTERTON: I confess I do not understand the purport of my right hon. Friend's interjection. If a part of a Bill is described as a life-line to safety, what is the whole of the Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: Sometimes a life-line may be designed for one section.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not want to quarrel over a phrase, but I do not think that, as regards the Clause to which he refers, it is a good phrase. It is equally as good to say that the Clause was not a life-line to safety, but a pipe-line to the abolition of private trading and private profit, because the Clause, if carried to its logical conclusion, will reduce private trading and private profit. In the course of debate we have had a phrase banded about by some hon. Members with very little idea of its meaning, namely, "undue profits." I suggest that is a nebulous and, in some respects, a very dangerous phrase. It has been well said that no one has given a definition of what profiteering or what profit is, and no one has laid down what constitutes undue profits. The hon. Member on the Labour Benches spoke with passion and obvious sincerity of the scandals—and they are scandals—going on in Newlyn, Cornwall, but he omitted to say that this had gone on for hundreds of years.

Mr. WIGNALL: The scandal might have existed to a very small degree when there was an over-catch of fish, but the system which exists now has never existed in the memory of the oldest fishermen at the port.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member has much greater knowledge of the
question than I have, and I have no doubt it is absolutely true, but it is equally true that middlemen's profits have existed from time immemorial, and I was somewhat alarmed at the speech, because it indicated some of the reasons why the Labour party support this Bill. The hon. Member was clearly opposed to middlemen making profits at all.

Mr. WIGNALL: No.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member said, Why should middlemen be able to sell fish at 2d. or 3d. in the town when fishermen obtained only ½d 1d. for them? The answer is simply that the profit he makes may be undue profit, but that he is entitled to some profit is obvious, so long as the middleman system is permitted, and, although revolutionary proposals have been put forward in the Debate, no one has openly suggested that middlemen shall be abolished, nor does the Bill deal with that. Therefore, the profits of the middleman are only relevant in so far as it can be proved that they are undue profits, and we have had very few specific cases given in the Debate of undue profits being made. The hon. Gentleman's case is, perhaps, the only one which is an example of undue profit. As regard the Clause in the Bill which relates to municipal trading, I have already protested against it in Committee. I think the inherent unsoundness of it is not realised by a great many people who give lip-service to it. I have yet to learn that the attempt to deal with high prices to the consumer by means of municipal or national trading has succeeded in any country during the War or before the War. I am certain, of my own knowledge, it has not succeeded in France. I think that is the most dangerous provision in the Bill, and I do hope the Government will be wary and watch very closely the action of the committees they propose to set up in any enterprise in which they embark in the direction of municipal trading. I am certain 90 per cent. of the House are not prepared to indulge in a system of municipal trading except with the sole object of allaying discontent at the present time.
It has been said that this Bill is an an example of panic legislation. I do not go so far as to say that. In some respects the Bill is a good Bill, but I must say the manner of the Bill's introduction, the way in which it has been passed through the House, the kind of speeches we have had from members of the Government, and
more especially from the President of the Board of Trade, strangely remind me of the same sort of speeches made in the so-called Parliament set up in France in 1780, under the influence of the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau.
So discontented were they with the high prices that they rushed to the so-called Parliament and got measures passed which, so far from stopping revolution, only hastened it. Judging from some of the speeches on this Bill, one is led to say that, while it may not be panic legislation, it is legislation conceived by people whose minds are affected by undue fear as regards high prices at the present time. The most valuable part of the Bill is the Clause relating to local tribunals. I think the psychological aspect of profiteering, the unrest in the minds of so many people, the feeling that someone is getting the better of them, or, in the vulgar phrase, is "doing them down," has got to be considered, and I think the local tribunals will give an outlet to that feeling. I think the local tribunals will have a more deterrent effect than anything, and they will occupy the position of a safety-valve to those people whose minds are greatly agitated lest someone better off than themselves, or higher in the social scale, is getting the better of them by charging higher prices than ought to be the case. For that reason, I do not propose to vote against the Third Reading.
I should like to explain the attitude of some hon. Members and myself who, for the last twenty-four hours, have been discussing this Bill. I do not think we need make any apology to the House for our action either at this stage or any previous stage of the Bill, because the result of our action has been to get the Bill amended in many important points. I do not know of any Bill in which so many Amendments have been—or the principle of them has been—accepted by the Government, and I think all those who have taken up that attitude have really assisted in the passage of the measure, because they have produced a, far better Bill than that which was introduced by the Government. It is fundamentally and radically altered, and every one of these alterations is due to pressure on the part of private Members. That should be said at a time when people complain that private Members exercise no pressure on the Government, and never assert independence. They have certainly done so in this Debate, and the
effect has been to make the Bill—the principle of which, in the first place, was entirely sincere and genuine, though the drafting was very bad—a far better Bill than the one introduced.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Of course, the exploitation of the food of the poor is a crime against humanity. I quite realise, and I know, that the public desire some sort of Bill to prevent excessive prices being charged for food. But before I give my vote—and I am going to give my vote—for this Bill I must, as a matter of self-respect to myself, tell the House, and tell the President of the Board of Trade, that I know this Bill is built up on a farrago of economic impossibilities. It may serve as a weapon to frighten profiteers, but as a real method of getting the necessaries of life brought down to a proper level I do not believe this Bill by itself will have the effect desired. I listened with the greatest possible pleasure to the words of the lion. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall). Every word he said I know, from similar experience, is true. In my own native county of Norfolk 100,000,000 of the best fish in the world—fresh herrings—were brought in on one day to Yarmouth, and 40,000,000 had to be taken away to Grimsby because they could not deal with them at Yarmouth, and were then shipped to Continental ports. It was not the middlemen or the profiteers, but it then was the railway system, now controlled by the President of the Board of Trade, which was to blame. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will remedy this. The railways have not the refrigerating vans, they never prepare for a glut, and have no method of getting these fish quickly into the small inland towns. If those fish had an outlet into the small inland towns it would have been a great gain.

Mr. JESSON: Cold storage.

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, and brine freezing. I hope what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has said may induce the Government to consider the question of a proper Board of Fisheries for this country. Fishermen might then receive better prices for their catches, more numerous markets, and the public cheap and good food, all helping to keep down the price of butchers' meat.
There is one thing I feel very much annoyed about in this Bill. Other hon. Members, too, have evidently realised it.
Men like ourselves, who have sprung from the general body of the trading classes of this country—and these men are, I think, the backbone of the country—resent very much—and I speak for the shopkeepers, merchants, manufacturers and traders—I say we resent very much the insult, which, to use a favourite word of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is "implicit" in the Bill, the charge of dishonesty against the trading community generally. I believe that nine hundred and ninety thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every million of the trading classes I have enumerated are honest, public-spirited traders, and though you may find one who is not, the rest of the million are decent, public-spirited men who do not like the implication put forward. If hon. Members recall the letters that have been received by them during the last few days or weeks, they will probably find that great irritation has been expressed over this insult, and the ill-feeling that has been shown by the accusation made that traders were exploiting the poor in the matter of food. There is the economic difficulty of which I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. Supply has been outrun by demand. We are now, as a House, endeavouring to forge a hasty weapon of defence, after having had many months' notice, when, unfortunately, though we saw where matters were leading we did not attempt to get these things put right. There is a much better way to put things right than this Bill proposes. Still, as I should not like to have it said that I have done anything to prevent the Government doing what they think will bring down the prices to the poor, I shall vote for it. Lot me make my suggestion.
There must be on the stocks in the shipyards of this country many first-class steamers being made ready for launching. Get the workpeople at them and get these ships off the stocks, and into the sea, so that they may sail to the Argentine, to Australasia, and the other places, and bring home the things we want. Ships now are making short voyages to America. It would be better to let those to which I refer go out in ballast if no coal freights are available than not to go to the Argentine and Australia, and bring home the wheat and the meat that, is there. If you do that you will go a long way to bring down the price of food. It is a better method than that proposed by this Bill, which imperfectly deals with the situation.
An endeavour has been made to cover up the economic nakedness of this Bill by bringing in the question of trusts by the scruff of the neck. The meat or packing trust of the United States embraces everything connected with meat. I will not enumerate these articles because I cannot remember them; but it is well known that the meat trust controls most foods other than vegetable foods. I wish the Government luck in dealing with it. There is one other trust, and in this country it does very well. It takes a good deal out of the pockets of the people. It acts as a tax-gatherer for the Government. It is a trust which is in alliance with—I do not think I am wrong in this—an American trust—I refer to the tobacco trust. I wish the Government luck in looking into the operations of these trusts. Trusts have baffled the United States Government for the last twenty-live years. I will make bold to say that the examination will baffle the Government of this country for the next twenty-five years. But if nothing else is done by the Bill towards cutting down the prices of food commodities in this country during the next six months—I have not the slightest doubt you will see no fall in the index number of food commodities in this country during that period—I have no hope of that!—I do hope, at any rate, the Bill will prove to be a bogey to intending wrongdoers, and prevent more mischief being done. I wish the Bill well in that sense, but fear its failure, and perhaps its power of increasing our troubles.

Mr. JESSON: This is a Bill which I dislike very much. I think it is a very vicious Bill in principle, but I realise that there is a great public demand for it, and, having regard to the abnormal times in which we live, and the abnormal state of public opinion, and the great public feeling, I fully realise that the Government were compelled to bring in a measure of this kind. I should have preferred to allow this work to be done by the Food Controllar. I think it would have been done much better. He would have dealt with the question much better than this Bill is ever likely to do. At any rate, the Bill is now practically passed. There was one point, however, put forward by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with which I should like to deal. I am rather afraid that his speech will, if not corrected, give a wrong impression to the workers of this country, and it is therefore right that it should not go out in its present form.
There is a real difficulty in regard to the fish question. This is a question to which I have given a good deal of attention during the past year or two. The difficulty is not so much getting the fish as being able to handle it as soon as the fish is brought ashore. There is a lack of cold storage into which the fish can be put. This matter, however, does not apply to the present Government or to the present time; these facilities have been lacking for a large number of years. It moans that the Fish Department has neglected its duty in the past in regard to this particular phase of the question. We are now in this position: It is impossible to put up cold storage in five minutes. The difficulty now is to get men to build houses. Cold storage will have to go for a time at least. The next point is the handling of the fish, and also you require quick transit; but your railways arc absolutely choked. Therefore there is no alternative at the present time, or until such times as we can get cold storage buildings elected, and facilities given for the transfer of the fish to various parts of the country requiring it. I agree with the hon. Member that fish could be made one of the finest forms of food, and a form of food which will do more than anything else to break down the operations of the meat trust. Again, what we require is a more liberal diet of fish to replace meat. I myself believe that as a nation we eat too much meat. If we could substitute fish for meat it would be better for the health of the people. But the cold storage must wait until we build houses: The people demand them at the present time. I am hoping that the sooner we get rid of the present glut of business so far as the House of Commons is concerned the. better, so that we shall be able to tackle 1 his question of cold storage right throughout the length and breadth of the country. 1 want to see every town, or village even, with a population of 2,000 and upwards with its cold store where you could preserve all kinds of food until it is wanted.
Fruit could be dealt with in much the same way. Look at the tons of fruit that are destroyed every year which, through cold storage, could be properly handled and saved. This, again, however can only be dealt with by proper organisation from the point of view of the Government. And you cannot do this thing in five minutes. I should be sorry if the workers of this country, as a result of the speech of my;
hon. Friend, should be under the impression that in this Bill we will be able to deal with the question of fish so that they will be able to get a plentiful supply of cheap fish in the future. For that is not so.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The House will realise that the Government have done a good day's work in passing this Bill. It is very easy to criticise a Bill of this sort which deals with an exceptional set of circumstances. But that being so, the Bill must necessarily be an exceptional one. The exceptional circumstances are very dangerous. They have already led to very grave discontent and unrest which, unless they are checked, and the state of things altered, will probably lead to very much greater discontent and greater unrest. The remarkable thing about it all is this, that while this Bill has roused in this House most bitter criticism—in fact in some ways almost more violent criticism than I have heard applied to any Bill of recent times—when the vote comes various critical hon. Members will be very slow indeed to go into the Lobby against it, or have so far voted against the Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Because the Government accepted our Amendments ! The hon. and learned Gentleman must have been in bed last night instead of in the House.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I do not know whether hon. Members will accept the Third Reading of the Bill?

Earl WINTERTON: I have voted a dozen times against the Government within the last twenty-four hours.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What I was saying was that when it came to voting against the Bill on Second Reading, and when it comes to the Third Reading, there will be very few Members courageous enough to carry their protestations into the Lobby. For myself I cannot help thinking that the Bill will be a useful one. It will, as has been said already, undoubtedly act as a deterrent upon those who are inclined to charge exorbitant prices. It will do more than that. It will place in the hands of the Board of Trade machinery which will enable them to track these cases in which unreasonable profits are made, and I trust then that the Board of Trade will be able to deal with them.
There have been two main criticisms of the Bill taken either by Members of this House or by the Press. The one is that
the offence created or aimed at by the Bill is of too vague a character, and is not sufficiently defined. The offence is that of making unreasonable profits. I do not see at this moment those distinguished common lawyers in the House from whom these complaints chiefly emanated. Were they here I would suggest to them that it is sometimes well to modify the rigidity of the common law mind by introducing reasonable and equitable considerations to correct the crudity of the common law. May I give an illustration—a somewhat remarkable illustration of a case where this House had a somewhat analogous problem to that with which it is dealing to-day. The question was that of undue exactions by money-lenders. the common law was ineffectual for dealing with such cases. The money-lender had his bond, and the common law said: "I cannot in the. absence of fraud set aside this transaction." Even before the statutory law intervened the Courts of Equity had intervened and said: "We will set aside this bond because we consider it unfair and unreasonable"—and they set these bonds aside. When it came to this House to deal with the matter, as the House did in 1900, they adopted language which was singularly similar to the language which has been adopted in this Bill for dealing with undue profits—unreasonable profits made by persons to-day. What was said by the Money-lenders Act of 1900 was in effect that "although there have been actual documents signed between the money-lender and his victim the Court might inquire into the matter, and might give the money-lender such an amount as the Court, having regard to the risk and all the circumstances, might adjudge to be reasonable." Almost the precise-words used in this present Bill! Here we have "reasonable profits and no more" in the Bill. In the Moneylenders Act it says, "A reasonable amount, and no more." I remember well when that Bill was under discussion in this House the common lawyers of that day were up in arms against it. Owe of the most eminent of them, Sir John Lawson Walton, afterwards Attorney-General, said—following almost exactly the criticism that has been levelled against this Bill in this House within the last day or two—
This Bill shows a lack of legal principles.
Exactly what we have been hearing on the other side and then that eminent lawyer went on:
It will create untold confusion in the administration of the law.
Just what we heard last night. As a matter of fact that Money-lenders Act of 1900 has worked admirably, and the tribunals before whom it has come have said that they have had no trouble in deciding what is a reasonable amount to allow the money-lender. So in this case, I do not think the tribunals will have any real difficulty in deciding what is a reasonable profit to allow the profiteer. So much for that, which bulked very largely in the criticism last night. A certain number of hon. Members and people in the Press outside, said that the real mode of dealing with this evil was by fixing maximum prices, and we know that a strong effort was made to do this in the Bill. If you have a standard article of food it is quite possible to fix the price, but if you want to fix prices upon an innumerable number of articles of clothes and dress without regard to the infinite varieties of qualities, material and workmanship and the demands of the wearer, if you want to do that it is perfectly obvious it is impossible, and also dangerous, because it would mean the drying up of the sources of supply.
I will give an illustration of my own experience, which is a rather interesting one. Last year I sat upon the Select Committee of this House for the purpose of fixing what is called a luxury tax. We were told to fix prices for articles above which those articles should be considered a luxury, and below which they should not be considered luxuries. The theory was that if you pay the price outside the luxury limits you should pay the tax. My experience was singular. For some reason which I never quite understood I was made Chairman of a Sub-committee to consider the question of Indies' dresses. In the course of that inquiry we had to look into a very large number of articles of ladies' dress, and I learned a great deal which I never knew before.
Amongst other things we found ladies boots could be purchased at prices varying approximately from 6s. to five or six guineas, and we are asked to fix the luxury price which we fixed at anything over 30s., but to fix the maximum price above which no boot maker should charge would pass the wit, not only of man or woman, but of any other person who ever lived. We were asked to fix the maximum price of hats. There were other
more mysterious and seldom observed articles we had to consider which presented even greater difficulties than those I have mentioned. I only recall that experience as illustrating how absolutely impossible it is except when you have a standard article to fix the maximum price. It would not only involve labour such as would probably necessitate another department with many thousands of persons engaged, and Heaven knows we have enough of that already, but it would pass the wit of man to do it, and therefore I am thankful that the Government have refused to accept the proposition to fix prices.
I was somewhat astonished when the President of the Board of Trade yielded so far to the importunities of some hon. Members as to say you may give me the power to fix prices but I will not use it. Practically he said "I do not want this power, and I shall only use it once or twice within the next six months, and if you like to give it to me it will not hurt." He will have power to fix prices, but I hope he will not dream of doing that except in the case of absolute necessity. I think the scheme in the Bill as originally brought in, and as. it has been amended in the course of the Committee, was a sound one. It gives the Board of Trade and the tribunals power to say what is a reasonable profit and to punish a man who makes anything beyond that. I believe the Bill will work, and it will allay public feeling, and I believe that some of those who are now making illegitimate profits will be stopped. For these reasons I heartily support the Bill.

Colonel L. WARD: -I have supported this Bill through all its stages, and intend to continue to do so to the end, not because I consider it to be a good Bill, but because I have a weakness for keeping my pledges, and I said at the General Election that I would support any measure which the Coalition Government introduced in the way of reconstruction. I do not consider that this Bill is a good one. On the contrary, I think it shows signs of being hastily conceived, and it is none too well drawn up. Furthermore, it omits what I consider to be very essential—that is, it does not lay down any rules as to what is the meaning of the word "profiteering." It does not say what profit the retail trader is entitled to make, and it does not give any idea of what reasonable profit can be made without being classed as profiteer. I rather agree with what a good many hon.
Members have already said that this Bill is, to a certain extent, eye-wash. It is largely camouflage designed with the idea of impressing the people with a belief that the Government are attempting to do something.
The greatest objection to this Bill is that it belongs to a group of measures which tend to restrict trade, it almost might be one of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in the effect it may have on restricting our already diminishing trade, and in these days we cannot afford to indulge in legislation of that kind. The time is rapidly coming when we must make a clean sweep of all these restrictions upon everything which tends to harass and delay the recovery of the trade of this country. I know that in three months the situation will be serious and may also amount to a famine, but that will soon pass and in five years' time if we have the courage to abolish all these restrictions we shall once more be in a sound and flourishing condition, whereas if we are going on as we are doing now we are simply playing with these things and putting restrictions in the way of the recovery of our trade and commerce. We may tide over matters for some time, but in five years this country will still be in the position it is in now, on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin if we do not remove all these restrictions.
We must make up our minds soon that the trade of this country cannot be interfered with in this way, and we must make an end once and for all to everything which restricts and hampers the recovery of our trade. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) said it would be a mistake to judge the result of this measure by the number of convictions and I quite agree with him. Let us judge it in another way, that is by its results. If at the end of six months we find that the price of the necessities of life in this country have gone down, then I withdraw everything I have said, and I will agree that this Bill is a good one. But if at the end of six months we find that prices of food and the necessaries of life are maintained at their present prices or perhaps worse, if they have risen, then I shall adhere to what I have said that this Bill is largely camouflage.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BRITTON: I rise to support the Third Reading of this Bill as the representative of an industrial working class
constituency. We shall all be very foolish if we expect this Bill is going to lower prices immediately. Nobody on any good grounds can expect prices to be reduced very much in six months' time, but I believe that if the provisions of this Bill are sincerely and faithfully carried into effect we shall be able to assure thousands and thousands of our fellow countrymen of all grades, except the rich and well-to-do, that at least they are not being had, and are not being fleeced, and that will remove one of the greatest causes of unrest in our midst to-day. I have heard several right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members say that this measure will create friction and unrest, especially amongst the smaller tradespeople. I hope we shall use our influence as Members of this House to try to assure these smaller tradespeople that they need not fear. If they keep within the provisions of the Act, when it becomes an Act, they have no solid ground for fear. I speak as one who has had considerable experience of Government control and Government interference. We have frequently heard in this House references to the boot trade, which has been held up as one of the great criminals of profiteering. I should like to say a word or two to refute that impression.
The output of boots last year in the United Kingdom was 100,000,000 pairs. If we deduct 40,000,000 pairs that were made for the various Government services, and also canvas shoes, slippers, and evening dress shoes—what I call "foot millinery" —we shall arrive at the conclusion that 60,000,000 pairs of boots were made that were suitable for outdoor wear and home consumption. Of these 60,000,000 pairs 20,000,000 were made under what is known as the war-time boot scheme, and were made to an approved specification with Government controlled leather; and they bore only a profit of 5 per cent., which was arrived at after the closest investigation by the most competent and searching accountants. I want to suggest that the President of the Board of Trade should avail himself of the machinery that exists in other Government Departments. I want to see this Bill tried. I rely very much indeed upon its moral effect, but do let us try it and let us see if we cannot remove the unrest that is general in our midst, because people believe that they are being unfairly treated in the prices they are paying. In the Ministry of Munitions and Supply we have one of the most perfect
systems, that will enable us to ascertain approximately the present-day price of some of the most generally used articles— woollens, textiles, jute, leather and hardware of every description. I hope that no jealousy and no departmental etiquette will stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman availing himself of this machinery. It is in the possession of the Government, and it could be used by the appointment of a few special costing experts. I am sure we should be able to arrive at approximately the real cost of these things. The boot trade has not suffered very much; we have not profiteered; but surely there can be no reason for tradespeople feeling dissatisfied if they are given the terms that this Bill gives them, that is to say, the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business engaged in the sale, of similar articles under pre-war conditions. Tradespeople and business men are treated reasonably, and while I am sure they will not always get prompt replies from the Department, even from the Board of Trade, they will not get unfair treatment. They will get considered treatment, and I do hope that the traders of this country, be they small or otherwise, will not be frightened at this bogey of pinpricks and petty interference coming from the Government. They are not all fools in Government Departments. I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, instead of setting up a host of officials, that he shall get this costing scheme to work with a limited number, say ten or a dozen experts. I am sure that he will then get on the track of the real cost of the necessities of life.
We hear a great deal about houses. If he had houses for the lads who have come back and want to get married, as of course every lad should—if they had houses, is it not the fact that it would cost them as much to furnish their bedroom or their kitchen as it would have cost them a few years since to furnish pretty efficiently the whole house? It may be that there is no profiteering in these things, but if investigation is made, as this Bill provides, we shall be able to show the great mass of our working men that it is the result of financial and economic conditions. I should like also to suggest that we should, as representatives of our constituencies and as Members of this House, during the recess go into our constituencies and preach the gospel of economy. We are
very apt to preach the gospel of economy to the men that are wage earners, but I believe we should do well if we tried to preach the gospel to those who seem to have an abundant supply of "John Bradburys" The glaring parade, the show, sometimes bordering on vulgarity, of the higher and the better-to-do classes ought to bespoken about. I believe that this unreasonable display is having its effect upon the spending habits of the masses of our working people. Some of us used to think it was a great deal to part with a sovereign. It seemed to be a great deal more than a £1 note, but the people are parting with their money now without getting fail-value for it, and that is one of the great causes of high prices. Boot manufacturers will tell you, drapers will tell you, that the only things they can sell to-day are high-priced articles, regardless of their weaving qualities or serviceability. Let us endeavour, all of us, to assist the Government by practising habits of economy and thrift, and let us support the Bill and believe in it, and believe that it is our duty to give it a fair trial. It cannot do much harm. It will irritate some tradespeople and some business people, we know, but it will allay a great deal of unrest and irritability, and at all events we shall have the satisfaction that we have done the best we could to bring the necessities of life into the hands of the masses of our people at the lowest possible economic price.

Sir A. GEDDES: I should like to thank the House and those who worked so hard last night on the Committee to get this Bill through. We have now taken a good long time—as available time goes before the Recess—over this Bill. There are other measures which it is important to get on with, and this Bill itself is now almost due in another place. Might I appeal to the Members of the House to let the Government now have the Third Reading, after what has been said? It will help the business along, as I know that we all desire.

Mr. RAFFAN: I should like just to ask one question. I have waited for a long time merely to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to indicate what I am sure would be of the greatest interest to the country, namely, whether he has definitely made up his mind as to the machinery to be used in connection with the local tribunals? I believe the Attorney-
General suggested, as an argument in favour of the Bill, that this was merely a reserve power. Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind to set up tribunals, and if so, are they to be set up universally, or only in districts where he finds on examination that profiteering prevails?

Sir A. GEDDES: I can answer my hon. Friend's question quite briefly. The idea is at the earliest possible moment to authorise convenient local areas to set up tribunals, if they wish, under certain conditions and regulations to be published— leaving the initiative to the localities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Tribunal for Assessing Compensation in respect of Land Compulsorily Acquired for Public Purposes.)

(1) Where by or under any Statute (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, any question of disputed compensation and where any part of the land to be acquired is subject to a lease which comprises land not acquired, any question as to the apportionment of the rent payable under the lease, shall be referred to and determined by the arbitration of such one of a panel of official valuers to be appointed under this Section as may be selected in accordance with rules made by the Reference Committee under this Section.

(3) A person appointed to be a member of the panel of official valuers shall hold office for such term certain as may be determined by the Treasury before his appointment, and whilst holding office shall not himself engage, or be a partner of any other person who engages, in private practice or business as estate or land agent surveyor or valuer.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-sections (1), (2), and (3), leave out the word "valuers," and insert instead thereof the word "arbitrators." —Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3); leave out the words "as estate or land agent, surveyor or valuer."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Rules for the Assessment of Compensation.)

In assessing compensation, an official valuer shall act in accordance with the following rules:

(1) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory:
(2) The value of land shall, subject as herein after provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise: Provided always that regard shall be had to all returns and assessments for taxation made or acquiesced in by the claimant during the three years next pre ceding the assessment of compensation:
(3) The special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is, a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser or the requirements of any Government Department or any local or public authority:

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the word "valuer"["In assessing compensation, an offical valuer"], and insert instead thereof the word "arbitrator." —Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "regard shall be had to," and insert instead thereof the words "the arbitrator shall be entitled to consided—Agreed to.

After the word "assessments" insert the words "of capital value." —Agreed to.

Leave out the words "during the three years next preceding the assessment of compensation."—Agreed to.

At the end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "Provided that any bonâ fide offer for the purchase of the land made before the passing of this Act which may be brought to the notice of the arbitrator shall be taken into consideration."— Agreed to.

Insert the following new Sub-section:
(6) The provisions of rule (2) shall not affect the assssment of compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of land.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to Procedure before Official Valuers.)

(1) In any proceedings before an official valuer, not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the official valuer otherwise directs:

Provided that where the claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of minerals, or disturbance of business as well as in respect of land, one additional expert witness on either side on
the value of the minerals or, as the case may be, on the damage suffered by reason of the disturbance may be allowed.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "valuer" and insert "arbitrator." — Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Costs.)

(1) Where the acquiring authority has made an unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation to any claimant, and the sum awarded by an official valuer to that claimant does not exceed the sum offered, the official valuer shall order the claimant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the acquiring authority so far as such costs were incurred after the offer was made.

(2) If the official valuer is satisfied that a claimant has failed to deliver to the acquiring authority a. notice in writing of the amount claimed by him giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time. to enable the acquiring authority to make a proper offer, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply as if an un conditional offer had been made by the acquiring authority at the time when in the opinion of the official valuer sufficient particulars should have been furnished and the claimant had been awarded a sum not exceeding the amount of such offer.

The notice of claim shall state the exact nature of the interest in respect of which compensation is claimed, and give details of the compensation claimed, distinguishing the amounts under separate heads and showing how the amount claimed under each head is calculated.

(3) Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the claimant so far as such costs were incurred after the offer was made.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) after the word "shall'' ["the official valuer shall order"], insert the words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Heward.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I observe there is nobody on the Treasury Bench who knows anything whatever about this Bill. I have had no opportunity at all of referring to my right hon. Friend opposite in regard to this matter, but I am quite confident that the House has agreed to certain Amendments which it would not have done had they known what the proposition was. I should like to move the Adjournment of the Debate on that ground. Evidently the
hon. and gallant Member opposite, who represents the Government, knows nothing whatever about the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The representative of the Government moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir D. MACLEAN: But was the agreement with the full acquiescence of the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion was made by the Government and agreed to by the House

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has come in, will explain the difference which is involved in inserting these words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."

Sir G. HEWART: As I understand it, the question is with reference to the insertion of these words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so." If my right hon. Friend will carry his mind back to the discussion which took place in this House he will remember it was pointed out that there might be eases of hardship where the valuer had no option but to award costs in the way prescribed. An Amendment was moved in this House to give the valuer power to exercise his discretion. That Amendment was negatived, but it has been adopted by this Amendment from another place, and it will be my duty later on to move a consequential Amendment which will give the valuer general discretion to order the claimant costs if for special reasons he thinks fit to do so. This is an intermediate step between the proposal of the Bill and a proposal made in this House in Committee, and it provides for those special cases where the valuer thinks there are good reasons why the costs should not be awarded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, at end of Sub-section (2), insert the words
and when such a notice of claim has been delivered the acquiring authority may, at any time within six weeks after the delivery thereof, withdraw any notice to treat which has been served on the claimant or on any other person interested in the land authorised to be acquired, but shall be liable to pay compensation to any such claimant or other person for any loss or expenses occasioned by the notice to treat having been given to him and withdrawn, and the amount of such compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the official arbitrator.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to enable the acquiring authority to withdraw any notice to treat which has been served. This was an Amendment approved by the Committee which sat on this matter.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If I recollect rightly, this Amendment did not receive the unanimous approval of the Committee upstairs, and I think it is one which the Government would have been wise to resist. But all I can do is to enter another protest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the word "valuer," and insert the word "arbitrator."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. RAFFAN: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to explain the general effect of the substitution of the word "arbitrator" for "valuer"? He was not in his place to give an answer to that question when the first Amendment to this effect was brought forward.

Sir G. HEWART: The answer is a simple one. It is a more appropriate term. The valuer under this Bill has evidently something more to do than merely to value. He may hear and take evidence. The word "arbitrator" is therefore a more appropriate word. It makes no change of substance, but simply describes more accurately the functions which the person called a valuer in the Bill already has.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am quite aware that no words which are used here will affect the construction which a Court of law may put upon any words in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, but I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether, in his view, the change makes any difference at all to the construction which may be placed by a Court of law on this Bill when it becomes an Act, especially in view of the discussion which took place in Committee upstairs on that point, when, so far as I recollect, the Government adhered to the use of the word "valuer." In another place that has been
struck out and the word "arbitrator" has been put in. Since the Government adopted the view that the word "valuer" was a better word than the suggested word "arbitrator," does my right hon. Friend think it makes no difference at all which word is used?

Sir G. HEWART: So far as I am aware it makes no difference. Undoubtedly there might be circumstances and there might be a context in regard to which it might make some difference. If my right hon. Friend will turn to Clause 6 of the Bill he will see that express provision is made in this Bill for the finality of the award of the gentleman who makes the award, by whatever name he may be called. It says
The decision of the official valuer" —
the arbitrator as he is now called—
shall be final and binding on the parties… but the official valuer may, and shall, if the High Court so directs, state at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law.
In those circumstances, in my view, it makes no difference of substance that the Gentleman who comes to this decision is called an arbitrator. It does not enlarge any power of appeal. It merely describes more accurately the functions which under the Bill he can perform.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: With all respect, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. The word "valuer" was considered quite satisfactory in every respect before the Bill left this House. Now it comes back from another place with the word "arbitrator" inserted. If there is no difference in substance, why was it put in in another place, and why did the Government allow it to be put in?

Dr. MURRAY: I am in some difficulty in this matter and am wondering whether there is any real difference between the word "arbitrator" and the word "valuer." The word "arbitrator" is of evil omen in connection with the Scottish Small Holdings Act. It ruined the whole of that Act. I do not see why there should be any change. Why put the House to the trouble, if it is a question of getting a synonym from the dictionary? I do not see why the Lords should have put in this word unless they felt that in connection with proceedings in respect of land they are more likely to get extra value out of an arbitrator so called, than out of a
valuer so called. I do not see why we should be put to all this trouble for nothing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (3) after the word "shall"[the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority"], to insert the words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."
This is an Amendment consequential to the Amendment made in Sub-section (1). It is for the purpose of giving the arbitrator in this case, as in the corresponding case which has already been dealt with, a discretion to vary the costs if, for special reasons he thinks fit. It is consequential upon an Amendment carried in another place and makes the matter fair as between the acquiring authority on the one hand and the vendor on the other hand.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Finality of Award and Statement of Special Cases.)

(1) The decision of an official valuer upon any question of fact, shall be final and binding on the parties, and the persons claiming under them respectively, but the official valuer may, and shall, if the High Court so directs, state at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the word "valuer," and insert instead thereof the word "arbitrator." — Agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Effect of Act on Existing Enactments.)

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the word "valuer," and insert instead thereof the word "arbitrator." —Agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Saving of Power to Refer to Arbitrator by Agreement.)

(2) Where a question is so referred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Commissioners shall not proceed by arbitration, but shall cause an assessment to be made in accordance with the rules for the assessment of compensation under this Act, and the following provisions shall have effect:

(e) if either party refuses or neglects to comply with any direction or requirement of the Commissioners, the Commissioners
may decline to proceed with the matter, and in that case the question shall be referred to an official valuer as if there had. been no reference to the Commissioners, and the official valuer when awarding costs shall take into consideration any report of the Commissioners as to the refusal or neglect which rendered such a reference to him necessary.

(3)Where a question is so referred to an arbitrator, the provisions of this Act except Sections one and four and so much of Section three as requires proceedings to be in public and as pro vides for the fixing of fees, shall apply as if the arbitrator was an official valuer.

(4)Either party to a claim for compensation may require the Commissioners for Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises, and a copy of any such assessment shall be sent forthwith by the Com missioners to the other party, and a certified copy of such assessment shall be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the word "valuer," and insert instead thereof the word"arbitrator."— Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "so"["question is so referred"].— Agreed to.

After the word "arbitrator"["so referred to an arbitrator"], insert the words "under Sub-section (1) of this Section."— Agreed to.

In Sub-section (4), at end, add the words "and the officer who made the assessment shall attend, if the official arbitrator so require, to answer such questions as the official arbitrator may think fit to put to him thereon."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to understand a little more clearly the meaning of this Amendment. Clause 8 gives power to refer to the arbitration of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue where the parties so agree. It will be remembered that in Committee and on Report in this House one of our main contentions was that the valuation of the necessary compensation to be paid for the acquisition of land should be carried through by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue rather than by the special body it was proposed to be set up under the Bill. The Clause was a matter of considerable discussion and indeed agreement to a very large extent. I am glad to acknowledge that the Attorney-General went as far as he could in this House to meet the points
put to him. This Clause was discussed pretty fully upstairs, and was further discussed on Report. It had as full a consideration by the Committee and by the House as any Clause in the Bill, I always regarded it as one of the mitigating features of an other-wise wholly objectionable measure. Therefore I am rather anxious to know what the meaning of this proposal is. I will read a part of the Clause as it affects the proposed Amendment, and see if I can understand it better as I read it—
Either party to a claim for compensation may require the Commissioners for Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises and a copy of any such assessment shall be sent forthwith by the Com missioners to the other party, and a certified copy of such assessment shall be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer
Then it goes on to say:
and the officer who made the assessment shall attend, if the official arbitrator so require, to answer such Questions as the official arbitrator may think fit to put to him thereon.
If I remember rightly one of the points was that it was unfair to have this gentleman before the arbitrator for the purpose of examination and cross-examination as to what his views were of the value of the land proposed to be taken. The fairest thing to do was simply to take his assessment and to leave it to speak for itself. Perhaps the Attorney-General will give us some further explanation why he proposes now to accept this Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: It is necessary to distinguish between two things. There was the question raised in Committee, and the matter was made plain in the Bill that by consent the question of compensation might be referred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and I undertook to put words into the Bill which would make that quite plain. That is Clause 8, Sub-section (1) —
Nothing in this Act shall prevent, if the parties. so agree, the reference of any question as to disputed compensation or apportionment of rent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or to an arbitrator agreed on between the parties.
That is one and a totally separate matter from what follows. That is where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, by agreement between the parties, take upon themselves the burden of determining the question. But then it was further provided, and unless my memory plays me false I made the proposal myself in Com-
mittee, upon the suggestion very largely of my right hon. Friend opposite, that apart altogether from the question of a reference by consent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue either party to a claim for compensation might require the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to assess the value, and we further provided that a copy of the assessment should be sent forthwith by the Commissioners to the other party and that a certified copy of that assessment should be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer. I think there were two Members of the House who were especially active in regard to that matter, one was my right hon. Friend opposite and the other was my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Scott). What is further provided by the Amendment made in another place, to which I am now asking the House to agree, is that that certificate of assessment shall be made still more useful in any proceedings which may thereafter arise by enabling the arbitrator in those proceedings, if he thinks fit, to require the attendance of the officer who made the assessment in order that he may put questions to that officer upon the assessment. The object of the Amendment is hot to subtract from but to add to the value of the provision contained in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Was the Amendment put in at the instance of the Government?

Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry to say at the moment I am not aware whether it was or not, but it certainly was not put in against the wish of the Government or with any indication of hostility on the part of: the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 8, insert new Clause (A): —

(Certificates of Value of Official Arbitrators.)

(A) An official arbitrator may on the application of any person certify the value of land being sold by him to a Government Department or public or local authority and the sale of the land to the Department or authority at the price so certified shall be deemed to be a sale at the best price that can reasonably be obtained.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am not quite able to follow the meaning of this new Clause.

Sir G. HEWART: This was inserted for the benefit and protection of trustees. It was thought it might be said where land was parted with in this way at the end of the Cestui que trust or otherwise that the trustees had not sold the land at the best price. It is, therefore, provided that the official arbitrator may, upon application, certify that the value of the land being sold by them to a Government Department at the price certified is a sale at the best price.

Question put, and agreed to Lords Amendment:

(Saving for Statutory Purchases of Statutory Undertakings.)

(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any purchase of the whole or any part of any statutory undertaking under any statutory pro visions in that behalf prescribing the terms on which the purchase is to be effected.

(2) For the purposes of this Section the expression "statutory undertaking" means an undertaking established by Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act, and the expression "statutory provisions" includes the pro visions of an order having the force of an Act.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the, Lords in the said Amendment."
Under various Acts of Parliament, relating, for example, to the undertaking of electrical supply companies, there is power to take over the undertaking subject to the terms contained in the Acts. It is reasonably thought that it might be said that such an undertaking is land, but the terms upon which that undertaking can be acquired are provided for in the Acts which relate to the undertaking, and it is proposed to insert this Clause in order to avoid any confusion, so that it shall not be said that the undertaking is land within the meaning of this Act, so as to be acquired under the terms of this Act and not under the terms of the Act relating to the undertaking.

Sir D. MACLEAN: These public bodies, which are constituted by Statute, and whose powers are limited by the Sections of the Statute, shall operate within the ambit of their own Acts, and not be affected by the terms of this Act.

Sir G. HEWART: That is so.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short Title, Commencement and Interpretation.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919,
and shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, but shall not apply to the determination of any question where before that date the appointment of an arbitration, valuation, or other tribunal to determine the question has been completed, or a jury has been empanelled for the purpose.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "July"[on the 1st of July";, and insert instead thereof the word "September."

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Of course it is necessary to alter the word "July" to the word "September," but I should like to take the opportunity of saying that the Amendments moved in another place have certainly not improved this Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not quite relevant to the word "September."

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

PART 1.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.

Schemes under Part III. of Act of 1890.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of Local Authority to Prepare Housing Schemes.)

(3) The Board may approve any such schema or my part thereof without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, and the scheme or part thereof when so approved shall be binding on the local authority; but if the Board consider the scheme inadequate they may refuse to approve the scheme and require the authority to prepare and submit to them an adequate scheme within such time as they may fix, or they may approve the scheme or part thereof subject to the condition that the authority prepare and submit to them a further scheme within such time as they may fix.

(7) Local authorities in preparing, and the Board in approving, schemes shall have regard to any proposals by other bodies or persons to provide housing accommodation within a reasonable time.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), at end insert the words
Provided that local authorities in preparing, and the Board in approving, any scheme shall
take into account and, so far as possible, preserve existing erections of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall have regard to the natural amenties of the locality.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause is in the English Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (7) leave out the words "have regard to," and insert instead thereof the words "make inquiry respecting and take into account."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Recoup Losses.)

Provided that the Regulations shall include provisions—

(1) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of the local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out of a scheme, or otherwise to comply with the conditions prescribed in the regulations.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "out"["carrying out"] insert the words "and administrate."-— Agreed to.

After the word "scheme"["carrying out of a scheme"] insert the words "to charge sufficient rents."

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment in like manner was inserted in the English Bill on Report, and the object is merely to ensure that a house erected by a local authority shall be let at a reasonably sufficient rent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend for more explanation than he has given. The regulations which the Board are empowered to draw up will, when they come into operation, be binding upon the local authorities. The Bill says, "Provided that the regulations shall include provisions (1) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of a, local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out of a scheme," and then there comes the proposed Amendment to insert the words "to charge sufficient rents." It is quite obvious, in fact it is common ground, that there is no hope for years,' at any rate for four or five years, that economic rents can be
charged. We are all agreed on that. I should like to know a little more particularly whether the words "sufficient rents" would in any way compel the local authorities to charge what may be an economic rent. If so, the whole scheme breaks down. I am a little bit troubled about the use of the word "sufficient." To what does the word "sufficient" relate? Is it in relation to the interest, however low it may be. on the money expended, or is it sufficient in relation to what a reasonable man would deem to be all the circumstances of the case at that particular time in that particular locality. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the word "sufficient" in that way may be open to argument and open to misconstruction and misconception. I can quite imagine that a local authority might say, "We have to charge a sufficient" rent and they might say that "sufficient" rent must give a reasonable return on the. money expended. My right hon. Friend is a lawyer of great eminence, and I have no pretensions at all in that way. I should like to have a little more explanation from him. Would he give us out of his vast store of legal learning and experience a little more light?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: This Amendment alters the whole idea of the Subsection. The regulations referred to are regulations regarding schemes to be drawn up under Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. What is the scheme? The scheme as I understand it is a scheme to provide houses for the working classes. It is proposed under this Amendment to insert the words "to charge sufficient rents." That will alter a scheme for the provision of houses to a scheme to charge Sufficient rents. That alters the whole object of the proviso.

Dr. MURRAY: Like my right hon. and my hon. and gallant Friend I am doubtful about the significance of this alteration. It seems to me to be a symptom of the reaction which is going on in the country. When the war was over there was great talk about a spasm of generosity for providing the people, and especially the men returning from the war, with decent houses. It was then agreed that there would be a considerable loss so far as money was concerned in the provision of the houses. As a result of the reaction we see letters in the Press about the tremendous cost these schemes will be to the country, and there is an
attempt to stampede and frighten Parliament over the tremendous raids which are to be made on the Treasury in connection with these housing schemes. Here is an attempt so far as I can see on the part of those who represent this reaction in another place to get the reaction crystalised in this Bill, so that it will have an effect upon the housing policy of the country. There is a good deal to be said for charging a sufficient rent, but under present conditions we cannot charge a sufficient rent for the houses. There is a good deal in this Amendment which requires explanation from the Lord Advocate. If it is to be a sufficient rent to pay the full interest it will destroy the whole scheme. A "reasonable" rent would have been a more suitable word. "Sufficient" rent is a very unfortunate phrase to use, and if adopted, may have effects which the House of Commons never intended. I hope the Lord Advocate will assure us that this is a more innocent thing than it looks.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: It is essential that in the housing schemes which are to be provided by the local authorities, and submitted to the Local Government Board for their approval, due economy should be exercised, and if they do not exercise due economy they should be penalised accordingly. But with regard to the charging of "sufficient" rent I agree with my right hon. Friend Sir D. Maclean that the term leads to ambiguity. What is a sufficient rent? In my own country, we are advised that the economic rent required for an ordinary class of house built under these schemes will be about £45 per annum. We are also advised that the very utmost that working class people could afford to pay for the houses, taking into consideration their income and comparing these houses with the houses occupied by others, is about £22 10s. per annum, which would be half what the economic rent would be. Would that mean the Local Government Board, with their legal advisers and their experience, would regard that £22 10s. as sufficient rent to be charged by the local authority? If it means an economic rent, the thing is out of the question. But I am assuming that the view of the Local Government Board would be that if the local authority, acting under advice and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the class of people to be provided for and their conditions and income, thought that the utmost they
could charge would be £22 10s. for a £45 house, that would be regarded as a sufficient rent

Mr. CLYDE: Certainly.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: In many of our villages there are rents of £14 or £15 charged, but the houses in those cases are not so good as the houses that are going to be provided by the local authority, and it has been taken into consideration by the local authority in fixing the rent at £22 10s. that the tenant must pay a little addition for increased accommodation and better conditions. I gather from what the Lord Advocate has indicated that it would be regarded as a sufficient rent if the local authority will go carefully into the matter and fix upon the very utmost rent that they could expect to get from the tenants of those houses, and that it does not therefore mean that the rent to be charged for a house of this kind should be a strict economic rent to provide for the actual cost of the house, and if the Lord Advocate can give an assurance to that effect then we may be satisfied.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYDE: It is extraordinary how easy it seems to be to raise misconceptions with regard to very innocent matters of language. From what has been said one would imagine that a local authority are not to spend more than half the necessary amount without losing some of the privileges under the Bill, and, on the other hand, are not to get these privileges if they do not charge an economic rent. The idea that it means that the local authority are to lose their privileges unless they charge an economic rent, is a complete misapprehension. The change does not mean, and cannot and will not be interpreted to mean, anything of the kind. The purpose of the provision is that a local authority, if there were such a local authority, who do not exercise economy, but on the contrary use extravagance in the carrying out of schemes, would be liable to lose the advantage under the Bill, and when it came to be a question of giving the ordinary assistance, an authority that did not charge the rent, that can reasonably be got from the class of tenant for whom these houses are provided, in other words, were guilty of nepotism at the public expense, would also lose the advantages under the Bill. The question of the wording has been carefully considered, both with regard to the
English Bill, where it was adopted for the same purpose, and this Bill, and I have no doubt whatever, and I give this assurance to the House, that the word "sufficient" does not carry the connotation of economic rent, but means nothing more or less than this, that if the local authority could not get more than £22 10s. for a £45 house, £22 10s. is a sufficient rent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the use of the word "sufficient" there would connote that the rent to toe asked would be a rent which in all the circumstances of the ease might be deemed to be a reasonable rent to ask?

Mr. CLYDE: The conception, in my mind, is a rent which in the circumstances can be obtained from the class of tenant to be provided for. No doubt everything ought to be reasonable and fair, but I do not think that those words are as well adapted to express precisely what the duty of the local authority is, as the words selected. That is, you are not entitled to give it for nothing or less than it is worth if you can get it. But you are undoubtedly limited in what you exact by the capacity of the tenant.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is there any objection to adding the words "sufficient in all the circumstances of the case"?

Mr. CLYDE: Anything that is sufficient is never sufficient, unless it is sufficient in the circumstances of the case.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Assessment of Compensation.)

(1) Where land included in any scheme made under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and net on account of the sanitary condition of the premises thereon or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any premises thereon which are in an in sanitary condition or are dangerous or prejudicial to health as aforesaid, shall be the value at the time when the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the building regulations for the time being in force in the district:

Provided that if the scheme requires that provision shall be made for the rehousing of persons of the working classes on the land or part thereof when cleared, or that the land, or part thereof, when cleared shall be laid out as an open space, the compensation payable to all persons interested
in any land included in the scheme (other than as aforesaid), including any premises there on which are in an insanitary condition or are dangerous or prejudicial to health as aforesaid, for their respective interests in such land or premises, shall be reduced by an amount ascertained in accordance with the rules set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "if the scheme requires that provision shall be made," and insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of the Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme."

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this-House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This again is a matter more of form than anything else. This Amendment again follows an Amendment which was agreed to in the case of the English Bill. The purpose of it is to make it quite clear that the question whether rehousing on the cleared site should or should not be required depends in the last resort upon the Board. Of course it does, but this makes it quite clear. It is also to give statutory effect to the intention that the Government had in proposing the Bill, that persons displaced by a housing scheme should be rehoused on a new site, and that rehousing on a cleared site should never be undertaken unless that be necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 19, insert'—

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Purchase of Building Materials from Government Department.)

Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Board with the consent of the Treasury any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, may daring a period of five years from the passing of this Act be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale of the materials so sold.

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is following the precedent of an Amendment made in the English Bill. The only effect is to give some possible assistance to private enterprise in respect of any materials which may be at the disposal of and is not required by a Government Department.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Is there anything at the moment to prevent any Government Department disposing of surplus stock to purchasers?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I would like to enter a protest against the insertion of this Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh that there is nothing to prevent a Government Department disposing of such property without the assistance of this Clause in the Bill, and I think that the effect would be to lead to regular trading on the part of Government Departments. We have already had a Profiteering Bill which allows municipal trading, and I think that this will tend in the direction of trading on the part of Government Departments.

Mr. CLYDE: If a Government Department has acquired bricks and materials for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, then, notwithstanding the fact that they acquired them for that purpose, they can, under the powers given in this Clause, dispose of them, especially if they are surplus materials, to a person whose private enterprise it is to supply this class of thing. It certainly does no harm, and it enables a Government Department to give very necessary assistance in this matter.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On this occasion I am glad to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. If the Government have got power for this purpose, I think it is a very useful indication to them to beware of hoarding and holding up stocks of material against the public. For instance, we had a question and answer in the House the other day. We now know that the War Office has got a million reels of cotton, which they are holding. If they would let this go the housewives of the country would be glad to get it at something less than the 6d. or 7d. per reel they are paying to-day. I support a Clause which indicates in any way to a Government Department how foolish it is for them to hold up material which they no longer require.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Relaxation of Building Regulations.)

(1)(a) Where in pursuance of a housing scheme to which this Section applies new buildings are constructed or public streets or roads are laid out and constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Board,
the provisions of any building Regulations shall not apply to the new buildings and new streets or roads carried out in pursuance of the scheme, so far as those provisions are inconsistent with the plans and specifications approved by the Board, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act any street or road laid out and constructed in accordance with such plans and specifications may be taken over and thereafter maintained by the authority responsible for the maintenance of public streets, roads, or highways in the district.

(b) Where the Board have approved plans and specifications which in certain respects are inconsistent with the provisions of any building Regulations which are in force in the district in which the works are to be executed, any proposals for the erection therein of buildings and the laying out and construction of new streets or roads which do not form part of a housing scheme to which this Section applies may, notwithstanding those provisions, be carried out if the local authority are satisfied that they will involve departures from such provisions only to the like extent as in the case of the plans and specifications so approved.

(3) The housing schemes to which this Section applies are schemes prepared or made by a local authority or by local authorities jointly under the Housing Acts, or by a public utility society or housing trust, and approved by the Board, and schemes prepared, made, or carried into execution by the Board under this Act.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), (a), leave out the word "carried," and insert instead thereof the words "constructed and laid."— Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1), (b), after the word "authority"["if the local authority are satisfied"],insert the words "or on appeal the Board."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), after the word "trust," insert the words "or by a county council or district board of control for the provision of houses for persons in their employment or paid by them."

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The effect of this is to remove a very small omission in the Bill, for it provides that a county council or a district board of control who are carrying out schemes for housing their own employés should have the same privileges with regard to the relaxation of by-laws as are conferred on the local authority or the private utility society.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: What is meant by a district board of control?

Mr. CLYDE: The local municipal authority.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Consent of Local Authority to Erection and Use of Buildings.)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any building Regulations a local authority may, during the period of three years after the passing of this Act, consent to the erection and use for human habitation of any buildings erected or proposed to be erected in accordance with plane and specifications approved by the Board.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "plans and specifications approved" and insert instead thereof the words "any regulations made."

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This again is really a matter of phraseology and draft man ship and brings the Bill into line with the English Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 23 —(Penalty on Re-letting or Occupying House Ordered to be. Closed.)

(2) The owner of any such house shall not, without the consent of the local authority, let or use the same for any purpose unless he shall previously have obtained the consent of the local authority to the purpose for which such house is proposed to be let or used, and any owner acting in contravention of this Sub-section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "without the consent of the local authority."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Repair of Houses.)

(1) If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice in writing upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

(2) If the notice of the local authority is not complied with the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work required to be done, and may recover the expenses incurred by them from the owner, and for that purpose the provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section fifteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, with respect to the execution of works and the recovery of expenses by local authorities and with respect to the landlords right of appeal shall apply as if the owner were the landlord, and with such other adaptations as may be necessary.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the words
("provided that if such house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation, the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house. Any question arising under this proviso shall in case of difference between the owner and the local authority, be determined by the sheriff")

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is the only Amendment which can be said to contain any substance, other than that on Clause 19. The effect is merely to enable the proprietor, when a house is condemned or found fault with, to adopt, if he likes, the course of closing the house. The Amendment again re-echoes a provision in the English Bill and does not seem unfair.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have no objection whatever to the proposed Amendment. My only point is to make certain that tenants affected by a Clause of this kind will be in exactly the same position, as regards removal allowance, as tenants who have been displaced under the operation of the ordinary closing order pronounced by a public Court, in Scotland the Public Health Committee and the Town or County Council.

Mr. CLYDE: I can safely give the hon. Member the assurance that it does give that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner," and insert instead thereof the words
(a) At the expiration of the time specified in that notice if no such notice as aforesaid has been given by the owner; and
(b) At the expiration of twenty-one days from the determination by the sheriff if such notice has been given by the owner, and the sheriff has determined that the house is capable without reconstruction of being made fit for human habitation.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Duty of Local Authority to prepare Town-planning Scheme.)

The council of every burgh, the population of which exceeds twenty thousand, and any other local authority if required by the Board, shall, within three years after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, prepare and submit to the Board a town-planning scheme in accordance with provisions to be determined by the Board with reference to any land within the area of the local authority in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "which"["the population of which exceeds twenty thousand"], insert the words, "on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."—Agreed to.

After the word "exceeds," insert the words "according to the last Census for the time being."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words, "in accordance with provisions to be determined by the Board."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "the"["area of the local authority"], and insert instead thereof the words "such council or other."

—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the end, insert the following new Sub-sections:
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the council or other local authority under the said Act, every scheme to which this Section applies shall deal with such matter as may be determined by regulations to be made by the Board.
(3) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after such regulation is laid before it, praying that such regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This looks from its size as if it contained more substance than it does. It is the equivalent of the final form in which the corresponding Clause of the English Bill was ultimately adjusted between the two Houses on the same question. The Clause has for its purpose to provide for the preparation of skeleton
schemes which are not encumbered with too much detail. There is no substantial alteration of any kind involved in it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Power of Board to Require Town-planning Schemes.)

(1) Where the Board are satisfied that a town-planning scheme ought to be made by a local authority, the Board may by order require a local authority to prepare and submit for their approval such a scheme, and if the scheme is approved by the Board to do all things necessary for enforcing the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively and for executing any works which under the scheme or under Part II. of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, the authority is required to execute.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "satisfied," insert the words "after holding a public local inquiry."

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This provides a safeguard against the Board compelling the preparation of a scheme without being fully acquainted with the circumstances.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The whole idea of these town-planning schemes was this: That to a very considerable extent there should be a measure of compulsion exercised by the central authority. What I want to be satisfied about is that the holding of these public local inquiries in no way limits the power which is given to the central authority to insist on the town-planning scheme being undertaken.

Mr. CLYDE: This is purely for the purpose of enabling the central authority to become acquainted with the local conditions and has no limiting effect whatever.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask what kind of inquiry will be held?

Mr. CLYDE: The Local Government Board has its own officers, and it will do, I expect, as it does now with regard to local authorities, and send down one of its officers and instruct him to make inquiries and to report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "authority," insert the words, "as respects any land in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Extension of Power to Make Regulations as to Procedure.)

Lords Amendment:

At the end, insert the following new Sub-section:

(2) Sub-section (2) of Section fifty-six of the Act of 1909 shall have effect as if the following paragraph were added thereto:
For securing that the council of the county in which any land proposed to be included in a town planning scheme is situated (1) shall be furnished with a notice of any proposal to prepare or adopt such a scheme and with a copy of the draft scheme before the scheme is made, and (2) shall be entitled to be heard at any public local inquiry held by the Board in regard to the scheme.

CLAUSE 47.—(Farmed-out Houses.)

It shall be lawful for the town council of any burgh to apply to the Board for an Order declaring that the provisions of Part II. of the Glasgow Corporation Order, 1918 (which relate to farmed-out houses), shall apply to the burgh, and the Board, if they are satisfied after such inquiry, if any, as they may think fit, that the circumstances and conditions of the burgh are such that it is desirable that those provisions should apply thereto, may make an Order so applying such provisions, with such modifications and adaptations as may appear to the Board to be necessary or desirable, and as from a date to be prescribed in the Order of the Board, the said provisions as so modified or adapted shall as respects that burgh have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "town council," and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am not quite clear about this Amendment, and I think there is something wrong. With its insertion the opening words of the Clause will read," it shall be lawful for the local authority of any burgh."

Mr. CLYDE: This is immediately followed by another Amendment after Clause 48 which states that in this part of the Act the expression "local authority" means the local authority for the purpose of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is this also carried out in respect of county councils?

Mr. CLYDE: This Clause applies to burghs only.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 48, insert

(Definition of Local Authority.)

In this Part of this Act the expression "local authority" means the local authority for the purposes of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

—Agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

(Amendments as to Procedure under Part 1. and Part 2. of the Principal Act and Minor Amendments of the Housing Acts as those Acts respectively apply to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment:

After Section 16 (i.), insert the words
The words 'out of their own number' shall be omitted. After the words 'provided that a committee so appointed shall' there shall be inserted the words 'consist as to a majority of its members of members of the appointing local authority and shall' and.

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a Government Amendment, but is one which was welcomed by the Government. The purpose of it is to enable local authorities to co-opt members who are not themselves members of those bodies, and thus gives them a wider selection than if they were, limited to persons who were already members of the local authorities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Heading read.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill which was promoted by the Law Society and supported by the provincial law societies, and was introduced in another place. It follows the precedent of the successive Bills which in previous years have been introduced in another place and passed through all their stages. The Bill was passed through all its stages in another place in 1013 and in 1914, but upon each occasion lack of time in this House prevented the Bill making any progress. The Bill has had the approval of successive Lord Chancellors, Lord Lore-burn, Lord Haldane, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Finlay, and the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Birkenhead). The object of the Bill is to make certain changes as to the methods of enforcing discipline in the
solicitors' profession. Under the Solicitors Act, 1888, the offending solicitor has to appear before the Discipline Committee of the Law Society. That committee investigates the complaint against him, and if the committee are of opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the solicitor it is their duty to bring their report before the Court, and the Court thereupon makes such order as appears fit. The result in practice has been great delay and great- expense. The cases are often quite simple, and the proceedings before the Court are, to all intents and purposes, formal. What this Bill proposes is that, instead of that procedure, the Discipline Committee of the Law Society should take such action as might have been taken by the Court. The Bill provides for an appeal from the order of the committee to the High Court, at the instance either of the applicant or of the solicitor. It is a Bill of modest scope, and I trust that now at last the House will make up for lost time by passing it through all its stages without delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[.Sir G. Hewart.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Sir D. MACLEAN: I feared to intervene at an earlier stage, lest any intervention of mine might stop the speedy and successful progress of this Bill to its present stage. I just wish to say now that this Bill will, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Council of the Law Society, and of all the members of that Council for many years past, have a most excellent disciplinary effect upon those members of the profession who have been guilty of breaches of duty with regard to the very responsible position which they hold towards the general public. This Bill really only gives something of the powers which medical men already possess for dealing with matters of breaches, not merely of etiquette, but of substance in their own profession, and I am quite certain of this, that this Bill when it becomes an Act will be administered by the Law Society with full weight being given to the onerous duties which are placed in their hands, and I am
also certain that those duties will be discharged, not only with fairness towards the members of their profession who come before them, but with a very high and lofty sense of what that profession owes to the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE UNIFORM BILL [Lords.]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition Against Improper Use of Uniform.)

(1) If any person, not being entitled to wear the British mercantile marine uniform, wear that uniform or any part thereof, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the distinctive marks of that uniform, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or, if he wears it in such a manner or under such circumstances as to be likely to bring contempt on the uniform, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month:
Provided that this Section shall not prevent any person from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays or in the course of a music hall or circus performance.

(2) If any person entitled to wear the British mercantile marine uniform when aboard a ship in port or on shore appears dressed partly in uniform and partly not in uniform under such circum stances as to be likely to bring contempt on the uniform, or, being entitled to wear the uniform appropriate to a particular rank or position, wears the uniform appropriate to some higher rank or position, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To leave out the words:
Provided that this Section shall not prevent any person from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays or in the course of a music hall or circus peformance.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not propose to move this Amendment, in view of the very generous way in which the Department has met the wishes of myself and other hon. Members by proposing to put in the very admirable words to prevent the use of this well-earned and honourable uniform being brought into contempt in the music halls.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I beg to move to leave out the words, "Of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays or in the course of a music hall or circus performance," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Or for the purposes of a stage play or representation or a music hall or circus performance if the uniform is not worn in such a manner or under such circumstances as to bring it into contempt."
The Amendment is intended to meet two points which were raised in Committee upstairs, the first, that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, secondly, to meet a point which was raised by an hon. Member who thought the words of the Clause might exclude the preparation of a cinema performance from the scope of the proviso. With regard to the first point, I still think the Bill as it stood would have prevented the uniform being used on the stage in such a way as to bring it into contempt, but for the sake of safety and to calm the apprehensions of hon. Members, I have added these words. The words "for the purposes of" and "representation" in my Amendment enable uniforms to be worn in the preparation of a cinema play.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I regret that I must press this Amendment. This uniform has been granted at the request of the Mercantile Marine, partly no doubt in recognition of their gallant services, and it seems to me that this Sub-section is altogether unnecessary and may lead to friction. I believe that discipline on board ships of the Mercantile Marine is good and is improving as a better class of men go to sea. I believe the officers of the Mercantile Marine can keep discipline themselves quite well and the captain of a merchant ship can very soon call over the coals a young officer who does not wear his uniform properly, and 1 am quite sure he can be trusted to do it. In regard to the point of the young officer who wears the uniform of a higher rank, if he were found doing it in Liverpool or Hull or other great ports I am sure he would get snubbed. A case might arise in which an officer abroad might have been serving as first officer on a ship and for some reason had to leave his ship, and he
might have taken a passage home on a vessel as second officer. He would have had no opportunity of altering his uniform or getting a new one, and he might technically come under this Clause and be liable to a penalty of £5. Those who know the British Mercantile Marine know it has obtained its high standard not by any rigid discipline at all, but by the natural genius of the British seafaring man, and this is particularly represented in the free and easy discipline, and so of; and this idea of making a man liable to penalties is, I, think, dangerous. I would like to ask in any case who is going to enforce this on board merchant ships in harbour? Who is going round to see if officers are properly dressed, or who is going to arrest an officer or take his name and address, and run him in if he is found improperly dressed on shore? I think it is a dangerous Clause and might be left out.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, because it is a very essential part of the Bill. When the uniform was worn under an Order in Council there was at first no penalty attached, but afterwards some kind of penalty, under the Defence of the Realm Act, I believe, was added. We have been approached to draft a Bill with the object of imposing a penalty. A pledge was given last Session in the House of Commons on behalf of the Board of Trade that we would do it, and it is to fulfil that pledge that this penalty Clause is put in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was very solicitous, when he was moving the Amendment to protect the uniform on the stage, that no indignity should be offered to the uniform. He has no solicitude at all about contempt being incurred when the uniform is worn in streets or anywhere else. There are only two penalties — one for wearing the uniform of a higher rank, and the other for wearing the uniform in an improper way—that is to say, only part of the uniform, the rest of the dress not being uniform. We have had the pleasure of seeing the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself dressed in both kinds of costume, and we have not taken exception to either one or the other worn in the proper way; but if he were to arrive here dressed partly in one, and partly in the other, I am quite sure we should consider he was bringing the uniform into con-
tempt, and I think the penalty of £5 is a very small one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked how the man would be prosecuted. The Mercantile Marine Association, who want this, will report a case to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will take steps to see it is brought to justice. Therefore, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this, and, if he does, I hope the House will not support him.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.

Ordered, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to Sell and Acquire Land for Annuity.)

(1) Any person having power (whether subject to any consent or conditions or not) to sell land authorised to be acquired by a county council under the principal Act may, subject to the like consent and conditions, sell the land to the council in consideration, wholly or partially, of an annuity under this Section payable by the council.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "an"["of an annuity"], and insert instead thereof the words "a perpetual"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Duties of County Councils with Respect to Side or Least of Land.)

(2)Where land is sold for small holdings or an option to purchase a small holding is given at any time before the first day of April, nine teen hundred and twenty-six, the sale or option shall only be made or given subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(3) A council may give to the tenant of a small holding an option to purchase the holding on such terms as may be agreed and be consistent with the provisions of this Section, and on any such sale any increase of the value of the land due to improvements executed by and at the expense of the tenant shall not be taken into account in estimating the best price obtainable for the land.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or an option to purchase a small holding is given."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or option"["the sale or option shall."] —Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2) leave out "the words" or given"["be made or given."]— Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (3), and insert instead thereof
(3)A tenant of a holding provided by a county council on land purchased by the council, who has been in occupation thereof for a period of not less than six years, shall, on notice of his desire to purchase the holding being given to the council at any time before the tenant has received notice to quit, the holding, be entitled to require the sale to him of the holding at the expiration of one month from the date of the notice at the then value of the holding, exclusive of any increase of the value thereof due to any improvement executed thereon by and at the expense of the tenant, and thereupon the council shall sell the holding to the tenant accordingly unless the council obtain the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to the requirement of the tenant being refused by the council.
(4)The value of the holding shall in default of agreement be determined arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
(5)A council may by order in relation to sales of small holdings provided by the council which are made while the order is in force, extend the term within which the purchase money is required by Sub-section (5) of Section eleven of the principal Act to be repaid, but so that the term shall not exceed sixty years. Provided that any order made under this Sub-section before the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall require the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Treasury.
(6) Sub-section (3) of Section eleven of the Principal Act (which required the payment on completion of tie purchase of a small holding of not less than one-fifth of the purchase money) is hereby repealed, and unless the purchaser desires to pay on completion of the purchase or at any subsequent time the whole or part of the purchase money, the whole of the purchase money shall be secured as provided by Section eleven, Sub-section (5) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment of substance. The new Sub-sections will have this effect: They will facilitate the purchase of their holdings by smallholders, and there is a very strong feeling in the country that men who have fought for their country should not only have a chance of a small holding, but an opportunity of purchasing the holding. Certain proposals giving an option to purchase were made in the Bill
as it originally passed through this House. In another place this has been carried very much further, and I will indicate precisely what the proposals made in the other place are In the first instance, by the new Subsection (3) any smallholder who has been a tenant for six years shall have the right to purchase his holding at the then market value. That, I think, is a perfectly proper provision, and it will prevent a county council from prohibiting a man who has been six years a smallholder from purchasing, but if there are any grounds for supposing the purchase is inadvisable, there is appeal to the Board of Agriculture. Sub-section (4) states that where there is default of agreement, the value shall be ascertained by arbitration. Subsection (5) lengthens the term during which instalments of the purchase money may be paid from fifty to sixty years. Sub-section (6) is a very important Sub-section, because it removes what is the principle bar to smallholders buying at the present time, and that is that they have to deposit one-fifth of the purchase money in cash. In future, if this Sub-section is agreed to by the House, the necessity for finding one-fifth of the purchase money in cash will disappear, and the whole of the purchase money will be paid by instalments. I believe if that necessity of finding the cash is removed, it will greatly assist smallholders in buying their holdings, and, inasmuch as nobody can exercise this right unless he has been six years a tenant, and has therefore gone through a very long period of probation, the risk of loss to the county council is exceedingly small. I think it will be a very satisfactory solution of an old question to many people, and notably a very old and respected Member of this House, Mr. Jesse Collings.

Mr. G. THORNE: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It seems, as stated, to be a very satisfactory solution of an outstanding question.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: I should like, on behalf of those who have been working for many years at this very point, to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the great help he has given us. I can assure him that not only those who are working on small holdings will greatly appreciate it but a very large number of soldiers who have looked forward to the possession of these small holdings will be ever grateful for what he has done.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will all the charges, for purchase fall upon the rates, or will any fall upon the Exchequer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In the great majority of cases the small holding would belong to the county council, and the county council therefore would settle with the would-be purchaser. If there were any loss it would fall on the rates, but in our opinion, and that of the Treasury, the chance of loss is almost infinitesimal.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then I understand there never will be, under this Subsection, any charge on the Exchequer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say that precisely. I said in the great majority of cases. It is just conceivable in two instances that there might be a loss to the Exchequer. There is, first of all, the case of an old smallholder, who was a smallholder before this Bill passed for six years, and now claims to buy, inasmuch as in the next few years any deficit is made good by the Treasury; but, inasmuch as the man has been a smallholder, we do not think any loss would follow. In any case the land is a security. The other case is this: Where the county councils are not sufficiently carrying out their duties. As the hon. Member knows the Board has power to carry them out. If, therefore, the Board of Agriculture sell a holding provided by them to the smallholder, and if there was a loss, in that case it would fall upon the Treasury. There, again, we have this double guarantee, that the man will have been a tenant on probation for six years before he is able to purchase, and, secondly, we have got the land as security and any instalments he has already paid.

Mr. ROYCE: But in that six years he will not only have paid the interest on the capital cost, but a portion of the capital cost itself. Is that not so?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think that is quite true. It may have been true in the past because there was in the rent received sufficient to pay not only the interest on the capital, but the sinking fund. That is not going to be the case under this Bill. Under this Bill there will be a very considerable gap between the rent paid and the loan charges. Therefore, it will not be true of a tenant who becomes a small holder that he will have to pay any part of the capital cost.

Mr. T. DAVIES: But what about the man who has been paying off a mortgage for twenty or thirty years?

Sir A.BOSCAWEN: That does not arise on this Bill. It arises under the old Act. A man can sell but he can only sell on condition that for a certain period of years the land must have been used as a small holding.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Amendment of Section 41 of Principal Act.)

(2) Where it is proposed to acquire any land forming part of a park or any such home farm, or, except where required for purposes of allotments, a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding fifty pounds for the purposes of Income Tax, or any part of such a holding, the Order authorising the acquisition of the land shall not be valid unless conurmed or made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (2) insert the words
(3) A holding to which the preceding Subsection applies shall not in whole or in part be compulsorily acquired under the principal Act by the Board or a Council where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board or the Council, as the case may be, that the holding is the principal means of livelihood of the occupier thereof, except where the occupier is a tenant and consents to the acquisition.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this new Sub-section is to make it perfectly clear that a small property of less than 50 acres shall not be bought for the purposes of a small holding if it has been the principal means of livelihood of the existing occupier. It was never intended that this should be done, but this makes it perfectly certain.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Provisions as to Commons and Open Spaces.)

(1) Any land which is, or forms part of, a metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or which is subject to regulation under an Order or Scheme made in pursuance of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or under any local Act or otherwise, or which is or forms part of any town or village green, or of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, shall not be appropriated under this Act by a council for small holdings or allotments, and shall not be acquired by a council or by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the principal Act except under the authority of an
Order for compulsory purchase made under the principal Act, which so far as it relates to such land shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament.

(2) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in giving or withholding their consent under this Act to the appropriation and in confirming an Order for compulsory acquisition by a council for the purpose of small holdings or allotments of any land which forms part of any common, and in the exercise by the Board of their powers of acquiring land under this Act, shall have regard to the same considerations and shall hold the same inquiries as are directed by the Commons Act, 1876, to be taken into consideration and held by the Board before forming an opinion whether an application under the Inclosure Acts shall be acceded to or not.

(4) Nothing in the principal Act shall be deemed to authorise the acquisition of any land which forms part of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1917. applies.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "not"["acceded to or not"] insert the words
Any consent by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the appropriation of land forming part of any common for the purpose of small holdings or allotments shall be laid before Parliament while Parliament is sitting, and if within twenty-one days in either House of Parliament a motion is carried dissenting from such appropriation the Order of the Board shall be cancelled.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has been brought forward by the supporters of the Commons Preservation Society. It is a perfectly proper protection that is provided, and I beg to move that we agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In. Sub-section (4), leave out"1917"and insert instead thereof"1907."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Amendment of Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.)

The powers conferred upon a tenant for life by the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, shall include the following further power:

A power at any time, or times, to make a grant or grants of any part or parts of the settled land in fee simple or absolutely, or a lease or leases for any term of years

Provided that, except under an Order of the Court, no more than two acres altogether in any one parish shall be granted or leased under this power for the purpose of the said Small Holdings and Allotments Acts or under the similar power conferred by the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, for the purpose of the

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the word "altogether"["two acres altogether"], and insert instead thereof the words, "In the case of land situate in an urban district or ten acres in the case of land situate in a rural district."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This deals with a deed of gift of land for small holdings and brings the Clause into line with a similar Clause in the Housing Act passed this year.

Question put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.


Provision of the Principal Act to be amended
Amendment.


Section: 43
…
…
For the word "may" there shall be substituted the word "shall."

Lords Amendment: After the word "shall," paragraph (a), Section 43, insert:


Section 46
…
…
In Sub-section (1) after the word "do" there shall be inserted the words or such shorter notice as may be required by the Order for the compulsory hiring of the land."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill was being considered on Report I indicated to my hon. Friend opposite that I would endeavour in another place to have an Amendment inserted enabling us more easily to deal with the case of building land which was required for allotments. It was pointed out that there might be cases where the land was ripe, or nearly ripe, for building, and where it would be a great advantage to take at least one crop provided there was a ready means whereby possession could be obtained quickly for the purposes of building. The difficulty under the present Act is that where the land is hired compulsorily for allotments it can only be reclaimed for building purposes by giving twelve months' notice. I undertook to see whether anything could be done in another place to get rid of that difficulty, and this Amendment was inserted in the other place at the request of the Government. It enables the Board to fix, after notice, a period of less than twelve months under which land may be got back for building or other purposes.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I brought forward this matter in Committee, and I beg to thank the Government for trying to meet the point I made. I am not at all sure, however, that they have met it, but I do not propose to ask the House to take objection. I cannot see but this will still leave the landlord very unwilling to let his land for this purpose, because it will be incumbent upon him, as I understand it, to make compensation to the tenant for unexhausted plants, and so on,- if he requires it back for other building purposes. I know there are compulsory powers to take it, but at the same time the unwillingness of the landlord is a very important factor, and will, I am afraid, tend very much to pre-

vent this building land coming into use. The proposal I made was a better one, I think, on the whole. At the same time the Government is the Government, and if this is the way they propose to deal with the matter I can only say I hope it will be a success.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of t. 1 of 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 25.)

(1) Section one of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917, which confers on the Court power to suspend and annul certain contracts shall have effect as if—
(a) For Sub-section (1) thereof the following Sub-section were substituted:
Where, upon an application by any party to a contract (including a contract confirmed by Act of Parliament or Order having the force of an Act)entered into before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seven-
teen, the Court is satisfied that, owing to the prevention of restriction of, or the delay in, the supply or delivery of materials, or the diversion or insufficiency of labour, or the shortage of shipping, or the alteration of trade conditions occasioned by the present War, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without serious hardship, the Court may, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for a variation of the contract, suspend or annul, or with the consent of the parties amend as from such date as the Court may think fit, or stay any proceedings for the enforcement of, the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising there under on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit:

Mr. SUGDEN: I bog to move in Subsection (1, a), after the word "fit"["as the Court may think fit"], to insert the words:
For the purpose of this Sub-section where a contract has been entered into before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and there have been deliveries of foods and other material under such contract, or the contract has been ratified or acknowledged in writing by the party sought to be charged there with subsequent to such date, then such contract shall be deemed excluded from the operation of this Act.
The reason I move this Amendment is that the trade peculiar to Lancashire this Bill will affect adversely is in that position because of the splendid Lancashire patriotism which has been shown to increase exports during war-time, and which will be penalised if the Bill as presented is allowed to pass unamended. We all know that the cry was "Business as usual" and "Increase your exports," in order to make equal somewhat the adverse state of exchange which was then prevailing between the United States of America and this country, and it was considered that cotton manufactures would be the best method of doing so. Let us for a moment see what has resulted. The cotton trade is an export trade. A is a Lancashire cotton spinner who sells to B, a French merchant in Manchester, and the latter then to C, a fellow countryman in France. If the occasion arises, as it very frequently does, and will arise more frequently in the future, for an English Court to adjudicate as to what is reasonable in the consideration of a contract, where there is an arrangement between the resident Frenchman and the Lancashire manufacturer all will be well, but he will not be able to deal
with the third party in France. A is the purchaser, B is the merchant salesman, and C the final recipient and distributor, and thus the French Manchester merchant will be put out of Court, and will, in fact, be ruined. That is how it affects the sale. Take the cotton trade again. It is affected by the machinery supplier also. Whereas the plant which the cotton manufacturer must use may have been placed by the supplier on account of patriotism to the production of munitions, and by the manufacturer, at the Government's request, has been put on other work, as a result there comes a question of how the loss shall be proportioned which a Court will have extreme difficulty to adjudicate upon fairly. It may be said that my choice of words will not fulfil the obligation which the Government must accept, but I am willing to accept any other words to secure my object. If we are to be fair to these men who acted so patriotically and put on one side their just rights the Government should not penalise them.

Mr. JODRELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I quite.appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, but I think it would work a great injustice. Although it would give a small measure of protection, it would do a great amount of injury in a great many other cases.

Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: (Department of Oversea Trade) I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but it is impossible to accept this Amendment. It falls into two parts. The first part proposes to exempt from the application of the Bill contracts in which there have been deliveries of goods and other material. It would obviously be an injustice in the fulfilment of the contract. The second point is that if the contract is acknowledged in writing by the party sought to be charged therewith subsequent to such date then such contract shall be deemed excluded from the operation of this Act. The ratification of the contract will be a matter for the judge before whom these questions come, and if the judge holds that any correspondence amounts to a new contract, then naturally such new contract does not fall within the scope of this Bill. For these reasons it is impossible to accept this Amendment, because the object of the Bill would be destroyed, and it would prove a serious hardship to those who have
entered into contracts which they cannot fulfil through circumstances arising out of the War.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lord]

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL.

Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Lords Amendment to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Shortt]

Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Lords Amendment to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, considered accordingly.

Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment to new Clause B, inserted by the Lords, considered.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move,. "That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment."
I shall move later, after the word "Trade"["Board of Trade"] and after the word "Labour"[Ministry of Labour''] to insert the words "after consultation with the interests concerned."
The object of that provision is that the Minister, in appointing the representatives of the various interests, shall take into consultation with him those who are best qualified to give him advice as to the choice of representatives. I think the words employed meet that desire on the part of the House of Lords, so far as the reasons given are concerned. There is just the same independence in the Committee as appointed by the Minister, and I think in every way the legitimate desires of the House of Lords are met, while at the same time there is preserved what the House of Commons has determined upon already.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask how this Amendment will affect the position of the Associated Chambers of Commerce?

Mr. SHORTT: They would naturally be consulted.

Lord R. CECIL: As far as I can see the Associated Chambers of Commerce are by this proposal absolutely excluded from all connection with this Committee. The Lords proposed, and I still think it is right and reasonable, and I can only regret the decision of the Government to take what seems to me a perfectly obvious view—the Lords provide, in what I believe is a reasonable manner, a proper Committee, namely, a Committee appointed by the bodies best qualified to advise the Minister and to prevent the Committee from being a mere replica of the Minister's desires. My right hon. Friend has great gifts, but he has a passion for power. He comes into politics with the whole pre-conception of a man who has been accustomed to order people about in his own business. I am quite sure that that is wrong, and that this Bill will break down because it is too autocratic in its character, and because it defies the democratic constitution of the country and the democratic tendencies of the people. The right hon. Gentleman was probably reluctant at agreeing to this Committee being appointed to check the proceedings, and he has "diddled" the House by inducing the promoters of that Committee to agree to a Committee which will be a pure replica of the Minister's desires. I quite admit that the words inserted are an improvement on the original wording, but, after all, merely to say that the interests concerned are to be consulted before the Minister appoints the committee does not carry us very far, because, having consulted them, he may disregard their advice altogether. The only really secure way of obtaining an independent and partial Committee was by some such design as the Lords proposed. If there was an objection in detail to their proposal it should be shown that some other body ought to have been in charge of the selection. That would have been reasonable. But the right hon. Gentleman has always taken the opposite view that anything that interferes with his autocracy or can possibly put a check on his views is wrong, and on that ground he has always consistently opposed this. I am sure he is wrong, and I am sure he, or possibly his successor, will regret it.

The MINISTER (Designate) Of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): My Noble Friend has devoted his remarks to condemning the alleged autocracy of myself. He has said that in appointing this Committee I have— think he used the word "diddled" the House. He suggests that I appoint these representatives. He says that that is the manifestation of this alleged autocracy and desire for unbounded power on my part. In neither of the cases with which we are dealing do I appoint the Committee at all; they are appointed by the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade. The democratic principles of the House of Lord's are not as we'll manifested as they might be.

Colonel GRETTON: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is in my opinion inadequate. Does he suggest that there is no understanding between himself and the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour—no joint responsibility of the Government as a whole? My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin is right. The Government of their own will and discretion, consulting among themselves, ought to appoint this advisory committee. This matter goes a good deal further than some hon. Members present may realise. All the power of the railway and canal commissioners is destroyed in regard to protecting traders on questions of railway

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[10.18 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jodrell N. P.


Atkey, A. R.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington).


Baldwin, Stanley
Dawes, J. A.
Jenes, J. Tewyn (Carmarthen)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander


Barnes. Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kenyon, Barnet


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
King, Commander Douglas


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Law, Rt Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Blades, Sir George R.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Lindsay, William Arthur


Borwick, Major G. O.
Finney, Samuel
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Geddes, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Lunn, William


Blowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.J


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Briant, F.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen).


Bridgeman, William Clivs
Green J. F. (Leicester)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Nall, Major Joseph


Bromfield, W.
Gregory, Holman
Neal, Arthur


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Newbould, A. E.


Bruton, Sir J.
Grundy, T. W.
Onions, Alfred


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Guinness, Capt. Hon. (Southend)
Parker, James


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Hallas, E.
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Carr, W. T.
Hamilton, Major C, G. C. (Altrincham)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Casey, T. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Clyde, James Avon
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Pratt, John William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hirst, G. H.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Holmes, J. S.
Purchase, H. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kind)
Hudson, R. M.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Hurd, P. A.
Rose, Frank H.


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Jameson, Major J. G.
Royce, William Stapleton

rates and facilities. The Railway and Canal Commission now deals only with undue preference between one trader and another. As regards the provision of rates and facilities, the Minister is in arbitrary and autocratic control, except that there is this Advisory Committee, which is most inadequate and feeble. It has no value whatever unless it is an independent body which can express independently to the Ministry and the Government what the position is in any particular case. The Bill itself gives no powers to any trader to deal with this Advisory Committee. It can only be called together at the will of the Minister. It is agreed that the Railway and Canal Commission has lost much of its earlier efficiency, but the Commissioners had a great authority, and of course they thoroughly understood the general procedure. That is now all swept away, except as regards undue preference as between one trader and another. I think the House will be wise to accept the advice of the Home Secretary. What is wanted is that the Advisory Committee shall be a really advisory body and not, the mere creature of the Government, Therefore I hope the House will not disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 18,

Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Stewart, Gershom
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Sugden, W. H.
Wignall, James


Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Seddon, J. A.
Sutherland, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Sexton, James
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Worstold, T. Cato


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Worthington-Evans, Sir L.


Sitch, C. H.
Vickers, D.
Younger, Sir George


Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Waddington, R.



Stanler, Captain Sir Beville
Wallace, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord E.


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chadwick, R. Burton
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)


Austin, Sir H.
Curzon, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, J. C.
Remer, J. B.


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Betterton, H. B.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)



Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Johnstons, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Larmor, Sir J.
Pennefather and Sir Arthur S. Benn

Commons Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "Trade," the words "after consultation with the interests concerned," and, at the end thereof, by adding the words "after consultation with the interests concerned."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Orders of the Day — WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTEATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir J. Craig): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."
When the Bill was going through Third Reading I gave an undertaking that I would consult my right hon. Friend with regard to the possibility of being able to allow appeals from those who had already passed through the stage of the tribunal that at present exists. My right hon.
Friend had already decided that that was quite impossible, consequently these Amendments are now sent down from the Lords and I hope the House will allow us to agree with them. The first is the only substantial one. The others are consequential and drafting.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT—Resolved,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[.Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before Eleven o'clock.